Methods: The drug classification systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Canada were selected to study alongside Thailand's system. The regulatory review was conducted through each country's drug regulatory agency website and available published research. Complementary interviews with drug regulatory authorities were conducted when written documentation was unclear and had limited access. Fifty-two common drugs were selected to compare their actual classifications across the different countries.
Results: All selected countries classified drugs into two major groups: prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs. The studied countries further sub-classified non-prescription drugs into 1-4 categories. Principles of drug classification criteria among countries are similar; they comprised of three themes: disease characteristics, drug safety profile, and other drug characteristics. Actual drug classification of antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and hypertension treatments in Thailand are notedly different from other countries. Furthermore, 77.4% of drugs studied in Thailand fall into the behind-the-counter (dangerous) drug category, which varied from antihistamines to antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and vaccines.
Conclusion: Thailand's drug classification criteria are comparable with other nations; however, there is a need to review drug classification statuses as many drugs have been classified into improper drug categories.
METHOD: National policies related to AAPS were reviewed using data from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, following the framework of the WHO Global Strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. The policy review was supplemented with data from corporate annual reports, press releases, four databases of academic literature, market research from Euromonitor International, and news articles.
RESULTS: Four TACs--Carlsberg, Diageo, Heineken, and San Miguel--have been expanding operations in Southeast Asia by setting up new breweries, acquiring local alcohol companies as subsidiaries, and entering into joint ventures. In contrast, policies for regulating AAPS vary across Southeast Asia and range from nonexistent to strong control of AAPS. There is strong control of AAPS in countries with existing legislation ranging from a complete ban (Brunei) to almost comprehensive bans (Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos) and partial bans (Thailand). Nonexistent to weak control of AAPS is observed in the Philippines, Singapore, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, which mostly rely on voluntary regulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The study's findings point to the growing power of TACs in the region and call for the need for stronger measures based on scientific evidence of effectiveness that are implemented without interference from commercial interests.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 329 GPs and 548 pharmacists was conducted from May to November 2019. Participants answered a questionnaire focused on their i) current practice in the management of AR, ii) views on patient compliance, iii) understanding and usage of guidelines.
Results: Clinical history was the most preferred method to diagnose AR by 95.4% of GPs and 58.8% of pharmacists. Second-generation antihistamines were the most widely available treatment option in GP clinics and pharmacies (94.8% and 97.2%) and correspondingly the most preferred treatment for both mild (90.3%, 76.8%) to moderatesevere rhinitis (90.3%, 78.6%) by GPs and pharmacists, respectively. Loratadine was ranked as the most preferred 2nd generation antihistamines (GP vs pharmacists: 55.3% vs 58.9%). More than 90% of GPs and pharmacists ranked length and efficacy of treatment as important factors that increase patient compliance. Awareness of the ARIA guidelines was high among GPs (80%) and lower among pharmacists (48.4%). However, only 63.3% of GPs and 48.2% of pharmacists knew how to identify AR patients.
Conclusions: The survey in the 4 ASEAN countries has identified a need to strengthen the awareness and use of ARIA guidelines among the primary care practitioners. Adherence to ARIA guidelines, choosing the appropriate treatment option and prioritizing factors that increases patient compliance may contribute to better management outcomes of AR at the primary care practice.
Methodology: IO HAT was a non-interventional, multicentre, 6-month retrospective and 4-week prospective study of hypoglycaemic events among insulin-treated adults with T1D or T2D, including four countries in Southeast Asia (Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh). Data were collected using a two-part self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ1 for retrospective and SAQ2 for prospective). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients experiencing at least one hypoglycaemic event during the 4-week prospective observational period (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02306681).
Results: A total of 2594 patients completed SAQ1. Nearly all patients reported experiencing any hypoglycaemic event in the 4-week prospective period (T1D, 100%; T2D, 97.3%), with all patients reporting higher rates in the prospective versus retrospective period. Severe hypoglycaemia was also reported higher prospectively (57.2% and 76.9%) than retrospectively (33.9% and 12.2%) in both T1D and T2D, respectively. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reported higher retrospectively than prospectively.
Conclusion: Incidence of any and severe hypoglycaemia in the Southeast Asian cohort of IO HAT was higher prospectively versus retrospectively, suggesting hypoglycaemia has previously been under-reported in this region.