Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a high priority across countries as it increases morbidity, mortality and costs. Concerns with AMR have resulted in multiple initiatives internationally, nationally and regionally to enhance appropriate antibiotic utilization across sectors to reduce AMR, with the overuse of antibiotics exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Effectively tackling AMR is crucial for all countries. Principally a narrative review of ongoing activities across sectors was undertaken to improve antimicrobial use and address issues with vaccines including COVID-19. Point prevalence surveys have been successful in hospitals to identify areas for quality improvement programs, principally centering on antimicrobial stewardship programs. These include reducing prolonged antibiotic use to prevent surgical site infections. Multiple activities centering on education have been successful in reducing inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antimicrobials in ambulatory care for essentially viral infections such as acute respiratory infections. It is imperative to develop new quality indicators for ambulatory care given current concerns, and instigate programs with clear public health messaging to reduce misinformation, essential for pandemics. Regular access to effective treatments is needed to reduce resistance to treatments for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. Key stakeholder groups can instigate multiple initiatives to reduce AMR. These need to be followed up.

ABSTRACT Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent the most numerous and significant group of biotherapeutics. While mAbs have undoubtedly improved treatment for many chronic diseases, including inflammatory diseases, they are typically expensive for health care systems and patients. Consequently, access to mAbs has been a problem for many patients especially among Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. However, biosimilars can potentially help with costs, although there are concerns with their effectiveness and safety. This includes biosimilars for long-acting insulin analogues. Aim: Assess the availability and use of biological medicines, including biosimilars within Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). Methods: Assess the availability of mAbs via the current lists of approved and accessed mAbs versus those licenced in Europe and the United States and their utilisation, as well as specifically insulin glargine and its biosimilars, within B&H. Results: The availability of the mAbs in B&H appears satisfactory, which is encouraging. However, current usage is limited to a few mAbs which is a concern for subsequent patient care especially with limited use of biosimilars to address issues of affordability. We also see limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine. Conclusion The limited use of mAbs including biosimilars needs to be addressed in B&H to improve the future care of patients within finite resources. We will monitor these developments.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80–90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 – €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

ABSTRACT Introduction There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability. Areas covered Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value. Expert commentary FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country’s essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.

Pharmacy activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina was regulated in 1879 by an Order of the Provincial Government, at the beginning of the Austro-Hungarian occupation. The pharmacy owner had to have a doctorate in chemistry or a master's degree in pharmacy obtained at an Austro-Hungarian faculty. The Law on Pharmacies was adopted in 1907. The first modern pharmacy in Banja Luka was opened by Moritz Brammer in 1879. The pharmacy was inherited by his son Robert, who had sons, Ernest, Hans and Alfred, pharmacists. Ernest inherited father's pharmacy, where he worked as of 1921. Hans, also a writer and a publicist, worked in this pharmacy (1921-1930). He emigrated to Israel in 1949. Before World War II, Alfred owned a pharmacy and a drugstore in Zagreb. The Brammer family, a well-known one in Banja Luka, contributed greatly to the cultural and social development of the city in the time in which they lived.

Background: Monitoring and measuring of the medicine utilisation enables to assess the quality of use of medicines, providing the evidence-based data for the improvement of the prescribing practice and a more rational use of medicines. The aim of this study was to analyse utilisation patterns of medicines and to compare the results with other countries. Methods: A retrospective, observational study to analyse outpatient medicines utilisation in the Republic of Srpska between 2009 and 2017. Data of medicines utilisation were retrieved from the national database in the Public Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska and calculated and analysed by using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical/Defined Daily Dose (ATC/DDD) methodology. The results were expressed as Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Results: Total medicines utilisation increased, from 448 DDDs in 2009 to 1,036 DDDs in 2017. Cardiovascular medicines (group C) were the most used medicines, and their share in the total utilisation increased from 36.6% in 2009 to 44.4% in 2017. Among them, the most frequently used were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, plain and in combinations with diuretics, namely enalapril. The share of medicines used in diabetes in the total utilisation increased from 3.9% in 2009 to 5.1% in 2017. Metformin and glimepiride accounted for about 83% of the blood glucose lowering medicines group (A10B). Among the antithrombotic medicines, the most frequently used were platelet aggregation inhibitors (B01AC), mainly acetylsalicylic acid whose use tripled since 2009. Diclofenac was the most frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic drug (M01). Conclusion: The trend of increased medicines utilisation was observed in this study. This finding is comparable with other countries. Variations between countries in the preferred medicines within a class as well as the extent of medicines use were observed. These differences were probably consistent, but not solely attributable, to differences in local guidelines and reimbursement policies.