31 Mar Does evergreening contribute to the prescribing pattern of citalopram and escitalopram to U.S. Medicaid and Medicare patients?
[caption id="attachment_67701" align="alignleft" width="155"]
Parita K. Ray[/caption]
Parita K. Ray
Medical Student
Department of Medical Education
Geisinger College of Health Sciences
Scranton, PA 18509
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
- Citalopram and escitalopram are two of the most commonly prescribed antidepressants in the U.S. and are widely used for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), along with various off-label indications. While both medications share similar mechanisms of action, escitalopram was introduced as a purified version of citalopram’s active enantiomer. Despite little evidence showing a clear superiority of escitalopram over citalopram in efficacy or tolerability, prescribing trends appear to favor escitalopram, raising concerns about "evergreening"—a practice where pharmaceutical companies promote newer formulations of existing drugs to extend market exclusivity. Prior research has shown variations in the prescription rates of psychotropic medications across states and within specific populations, particularly among Medicaid and Medicare patients. However, little is known about the long-term prescribing patterns of citalopram versus escitalopram in these populations and whether these trends reflect potential evergreening practices.
Prof. El GHOCH[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Prof. Marwan EL GHOCH
Dr. Bradshaw[/caption]
Catriona Bradshaw MMBS(Hons), PhD, FAChSHM, FAHMS
Professor (Research), Head of Research Translation and Mentorship
and of The Genital Microbiota and Mycoplasma Group Melbourne
School of Translational Medicine, Monash University and Alfred Hospital
Principal Research Fellow at the Burnet Institute
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: One in three women globally have bacterial vaginosis (BV), a condition that causes a malodourous discharge, and associated with serious gynaecologic and obstetric sequelae (including miscarriage and preterm birth) and increases the risk sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV. Women with symptoms are treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, however, over 50% of women experience BV recurrence within 3-6 months. The recurrence rate is even higher at 60-80% among women with an ongoing regular partner. Current practice is to simply retreat women experiencing BV recurrence with the same antibiotics, which leaves them (and clinicians) frustrated and distressed.
We and others have accumulated a body of evidence to show that BV has the profile of an STI. BV-associated bacteria are detected in men in the distal urethra and on penile-skin, and couples share these organisms. However, to date, has not been recommended for BV as it is for other STIs. This is largely because men do not usually have any symptoms, and past partner-treatment trials in the 1980s and 1990s, which only used oral antibiotics for men, failed to prevent BV recurrence, which was taken as conclusive evidence against sexual transmission. Reviews of these trials have since identified their limitations.
Given the evidence of male carriage of BV-associated bacteria at two genital sites, we hypothesised that both sites needed to be targeted with antimicrobial therapy to prevent re-infection post-treatment. The aim of our study was to assess if male partner-treatment concurrently with female treatment using a combination of oral and topical antibiotics for the first time, would decrease BV recurrence over 12 weeks compared to the current standard practice of treating women only.
Elena Stains[/caption]
Elena Stains
Medical Student
Department of Medical Education
Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine
Scranton, PA
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: In 2019 to 2020, 2.5% of Americans reported using cannabis for medical needs, compared to 1.2% in 2013-2014, representing a 12.9% annual increase1. Forty states and the District of Columbia have legislation for some form of medical cannabis (MC) in 2024. Because MC is not federally legalized, each state creates its own legislation on the conditions that qualify a person for MC, without any standardized process to determine what qualifying conditions (QC) are proven to be aided by MC. Thus, the QCs chosen by states vary widely. Common QCs include cancer, dementia, and PTSD.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) published a report in 2017 on the evidence for the therapeutic effects of cannabis and cannabinoids for over twenty conditions2. This report reviews the evidence of effectiveness of medical cannabis for the most common QCs chosen by states. The researchers at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine aimed to compare the evidence found by the NAS report with the QCs of 38 states (including the District of Columbia) in both 2017 and 2024. QCs were categorized based on NAS-established level of evidence: limited, moderate, or substantial/conclusive evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of ineffectiveness, or no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness (Table 1).
Prof. Michaelides[/caption]
Professor Michel Michaelides BSc MB BS MD(Res) FRCOphth FACS
Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon
UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Mzoughi[/caption]
Slim Mzoughi, PhD
Prof. Chaturvedi[/caption]
Prof. Vishnu Chaturvedi, Ph.D., HCLD
Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology
New York Medical College
Department of Pathology, Westchester Medical Center
Valhalla, New York,
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? How does Candida auris differ from Candida albicans, ie in clinical presentation or treatment?