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.

Medication prescribing and administration in nursing homes

Objective: to examine the key determinants of pharmaco-epidemiology in Australian nursing homes. Design: a cross-sectional survey of medication use in 998 residents in 15 nursing homes in Southern Queensland and Northern New South Wales, Results: the total, laxative, digoxin/diuretic, benzodiazepine and psycholeptic medication prescribed and administered to residents of nursing homes was affected to differing extents by age and gender, the nursing home, resident functional disability and medical practitioner. Resident Classification Instrument (RCI) category and nursing home were the dominant determinants for prescribing and administration of the total drugs, laxative, benzodiazepine and psycholeptic medications. In contrast, the resident use of digoxin and/or diuretics was dependent on the resident age and on the functional disability (RCI category) of the resident but not medical practitioner or nursing home. Approximately 30% of medications were prescribed on a pro re nata (p.r.n.) basis and administered at the discretion of registered nurses. Conclusion: nursing home culture is a major determinant of the variability in medication use between residents, particularly for those medications often prescribed for p.r.n. use. The nursing home does not account for variation in the use of digoxin and/or diuretics which are prescribed on a non-discretionary basis.

A clinical audit of the prescribing of celecoxib and rofecoxib in Australian rural general practice

Aims The new cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors, celecoxib (Celebrex®) and rofecoxib (Vioxx®), have been widely prescribed since their launch. No reviews currently appear in the literature of prescribing patterns in Australia. This paper describes a self-audit of the clinical use of selective COX-2 inhibitor therapy undertaken with rural general practitioners (GPs) in Australia. Methods A structured audit form was developed and distributed to interested GPs. The form was self-administered and focused on issues about COX-2 inhibitors and the types of patients who were receiving them, e.g. indications, patient demographics, risk factors and drug interactions. Results A total of 627 patients were recruited (569 celecoxib and 58 rofecoxib). A range of doses was prescribed. Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (68.1%). Risk factors known for the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in 65.1% of patients, with the most common being advanced age, hypertension and previous peptic ulcer disease. Potential drug interactions were common. A variety of reasons for initiation of therapy was identified; these included perceived increased efficacy, safety and failure of other treatment. Conclusions These results show that COX-2 inhibitors are being prescribed for patients with multiple risk factors that may place the patient at increased risk of adverse drug reactions to a COX-2 inhibitor. The perception of improved safety and efficacy was common and is of concern. Limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reporting.

Influences on doctors' prescribing: Is geographical remoteness a factor?

Objective: To identify factors influencing the prescribing of medicines by general practitioners in rural and remote Australia. Design: A qualitative study using a questionnaire to determine attitudes about prescribing, specific prescribing habits and comments on prescribing in ‘rural practice’. Setting: General practice in rural and remote Queensland. Subjects: General practitioners practising in rural and remote settings in Queensland (n = 258). Main outcome measures: The factors perceived to influence the prescribing of medicines by medical practitioners in rural environments. Results: A 58% response rate (n = 142) was achieved. Most respondents agreed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice. The majority of respondents agreed that their prescribing was influenced by practice location, isolation of patient home location, limited diagnostic testing and increased drug monitoring. Location issues and other issues were more likely to be identified as ‘influential’ by the more isolated practitioners. Factors such as access to continuing medical education and specialists were confirmed as having an influence on prescribing. The prescribing of recently marketed drugs was more likely by doctors practising in less remote rural areas. Conclusion: Practising in rural and remote locations is perceived to have an effect on prescribing. These influences need to be considered when developing quality use of medicines policies and initiatives for these locations. What is already known: Anecdotal and audit based studies have shown that rural general practice differs to urban-based practice in Australia, including some limited data showing some variations in prescribing patterns. No substantiated explanations for these variations have been offered. It is known that interventions to change prescribing behaviour are more likely to be effective if they are perceived as relevant and hence increasing our knowledge of rural doctors’ perceptions of differences in rural practice prescribing is required. What this study adds: Rural doctors believed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice and they described a range of influences. The more remotely located doctors were more likely to report the ‘rural’ influences on prescribing, however, most results failed to reach statistical significance when compared to the less remotely located doctors. These perceptions should be considered when developing medicines policy and education for rural medical practitioners to ensure it is perceived rurally relevant.

Quantifying the use of the statin antilipemic drugs: Comparisons and contrasts between Nova Scotia, Canada, and Queensland, Australia

Background: jurisdictions are developing public drug insurance systems to improve access to pharmaceuticals, cost-effective prescribing, and patient health and well-being. We compared 2 Jurisdictions with different pharmaceutical policies to determine prescribing patterns for 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (le, statins). Objective: The aim of this work was to investigate the feasibility of using available prescription admimstrative databases to compare the use of statins in Queensland, Australia, and in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods: Data from the Nova Scotia Pharmacare Program and the Health Insurance Commission in Australia were used to obtain dispensing data. Utilization was compared for the 5-year period from 1997 through 2001, using the World Health Organization anatomic therapeutic chemical/defined daily dose (DDD) system. Results: In the year 2001, there were 177,000 beneficiaries in the public drug plan in Nova Scotia (62% aged ≥ 65 years old) and 960,000 concession beneficiaries (pensioners and social security recipients, 61% aged ≥ 65 years) in Queensland. These 2 groups were comparable. The overall utilization of statin medications increased steadily in both areas over the study period, from 50 to 205 DDD/1000 beneficiaries per day. Comparison of the 2 growth lines showed no statistically significant differences in overall statin use despite differences in brand availabilities and policies about prescribing. In the year 2001, atorvastatin was the most commonly prescribed statin in both areas, comprising 46% of statin use in Nova Scotia and 51% in Queensland. Mean doses of each statin prescribed were slightly above the DDDs. Expenditure on statins per 1000 beneficiaries and per DDD were similar in each jurisdiction, being slightly higher in Nova Scotia. Conclusions: Despite differences in pharmaceutical reimbursement systems, use of the statins was similar in Nova Scotia and Queensland. The feasibility of the methodology was demonstrated. Future studies, including comparisons of drug utilization for other classes of drugs for which drug policies may be divergent (eg, different pricing structures or prior authorization requirements), or for which less evidence for appropriate use is available, may be useful. © 2005 Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Perceptions of the influence of prescription medicine samples on prescribing by family physicians

Background: The provision of free prescription medicine samples is a common and traditional marketing strategy used by pharmaceutical companies, but concerns have been raised about their influence on physician prescribing behavior and patient safety. Objective: We sought to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Australian family physicians regarding the use of sample prescription medications. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used, including (1) mailed questionnaires to family physicians, (2) semistructured interviews with family physicians, and (3) sample cupboard inventories. Results: A number of issues about samples were identified by the questionnaires (208) and interviews (17 doctors), including insufficient labeling, poor record keeping, diversion of stock (personal use by doctors.. their families, practice staff and pharmaceutical representatives), and wasting of expired stock. Prescription medicine samples also influenced prescribing behavior. Australian doctors were less likely to provide samples to patients on financial grounds compared with a previous study in the United States on medical residents. Six sample cupboards were inventoried. Median wholesale value of sample cupboards was AUD $4959 (range $2395-$8709), with 6% of stock expired. Very little generic medicine was included in the sample cupboards. Conclusions: Better methods are needed to meet legislative requirements and to ensure quality use of medicines (and optimal public health) with respect to prescription medicine samples. Doctors and practice staff require training on the appropriate handling and storage of prescription medications. Alternative ways for distribution of sample medications need to be investigated.

Changes in use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Australia over the period 1992-2004

Purpose Evidence is growing that early use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and combinations of these drugs provide optimal care for people with rheumatoid arthirits. The aim of this study was to describe objectively the pattern of consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community (community-based prescribing, specialist and general practitioner) 1992-2004, and to compare this with prescribing patterns reported in other countries. Method Dispensing statistics from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS-Australia's universal prescription subsidy scheme) were analysed and temporal trends evaluated. Drug consumption was calculated as the number of dispensed defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day (WHO ATC/DDD classification 2005). Results The consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community increased steadily from 2.6 DDD/1000 inhabitants/ day in 1992 to 5.5 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day. Over the period 1992-2004, methotrexate (MTX) was the most commonly used DMARD (from 0.6 to 3.0 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day). Consumption of gold (parentcral and oral) and penicillamine declined during this time. The inclusion of leflunomide on the PBS in 2000 contributed to the increase in DMARD usage. Conclusion Use of DMARDs within the Australian community has increased in recent years, coinciding with the change in guidelines for therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to earlier use of DMARDs and the more common use of combinations. This study used DDD methodology to quantify trends for DMARD consumption and these trends are broadly consistent with international prescribing patterns assessed using different methodologies. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How is leflunomide prescribed and used in Australia? analysis of prescribing and adverse effect reporting

Purpose To evaluate the use of leflunomide in the Australian community since introduction in 2000. Trends in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting were also studied. Methods Annual Australian prescription and dispensing statistics were analysed. Drug utilisation was estimated as defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day. ADR data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration's Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) national monitoring system were compared with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Vigibase records. Results Leflunomide use in Australia (dispensing data) increased from 0.2 in 2000 to 0.4 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in 2002. The same overall pattern was observed in the 'authority to prescribe' data. From 2000-2002, prescribing of the starter pack (3 x 100 mg loading dose plus 30 x 20 mg tablets) declined (down 74%); likewise for the 20mg (30 tablets) pack. Gradual increases were noted for the 10 mg (30 tablets) pack (up 40%). Approximately 135 reports, detailing about 370 individual ADR, were generated annually. Gastro-intestinal disorders predominated, accounting for 24% of reactions reported to ADRAC. Skin and appendages disorders constituted 14% of reported reactions. Deaths in leflunomide users were attributed to a combination of haematological and gastro-intestinal complications, but it was not possible to ascertain other medication usage or contributing factors. Trends observed with the ADRAC reports were consistent with the WHO database. Conclusions Leflunomide was the first registered DMARD in Australia in over a decade and its use has increased within the community. The ADR reports might have contributed to Australian rheumatologists gradually abandoning loading patients with high doses of leflunomide in favour of starting therapy at lower doses. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PRN Sedation-patterns of prescribing and administration in a child and adolescent mental health inpatient service

Objective: To identify utilisation rates of prn (pro re nata) sedation in children and adolescents receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment, and to compare correlates of prn prescribing and administration. Method A retrospective chart review examined 122 medical charts from a child and youth mental health inpatient service. Results 71.3% of patients were prescribed prn sedation and 50.8% were administered prn sedation. Patients received an average of 8.0 doses of prn sedation, with 9.8% receiving 10 or more doses. Chlorpromazine and diazepam were the most commonly utilised agents. Prescribing of prn sedation was only related to use of regular medications (p < 0.01), and non-parent carers (p < 0.01). In contrast, administration of prn sedation was associated with multiple diagnoses (p < 0.01), pervasive development disorder (p < 0.01), mental retardation (p < 0.01) ADHD (p < 0.01), longer hospital admission (p < 0.01), use of atypical antipsychotics (p < 0.01) and polypharmacy (p < 0.01). Conclusions Despite lack of data to inform practice, prn sedation is widely utilised, especially in complex patients. Future research in this area needs to incorporate nurses and examine whether patients benefit from prn sedation, which drugs and dosing patterns optimise safety and efficacy, and what is the role of prn sedation in the context of other medication.

The Swiss heroin trials: testing alternative approaches

Over half a million heroin misusers receive oral methadone maintenance treatment world-wide1 but the maintenance prescription of injectable opioid drugs, like heroin, remains controversial. In 1992 Switzerland began a large scale evaluation of heroin and other injectable opiate prescribing that eventually involved 1035 misusers. 2 3 The results of the evaluation have recently been reported.4 These show that it was feasible to provide heroin by intravenous injection at a clinic, up to three times a day, for seven days a week. This was done while maintaining good drug control, good order, client safety, and staff morale. Patients were stabilised on 500 to 600 mg heroin daily without evidence of increasing tolerance. Retention in treatment was 89% at six months and 69% at 18 months.4 The self reported use of non-prescribed heroin fell signifianctly, but other drug use was minimally affected. The death rate was 1% per year, and there were no deaths from overdose among participants . . . [Full text of this article]