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.

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.

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.

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.