scholarly journals “Drugs to avoid” to improve quality use of medicines: how is Australia faring?

Author(s):  
Agnes Vitry ◽  
Barbara Mintzes

Abstract Background Each year, the French independent bulletin Prescrire publishes a list of medicines, “Drugs to avoid”, that should not be used in clinical practice as their risk-to-benefit ratio is unfavourable. This study assessed the market approval, reimbursement and use of these medicines in Australia. Methods The approval status of the medicines included in 2019 Prescrire “Drugs to avoid” list was assessed by searching the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods website. Funding status was assessed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) website, the Australian public insurance system. Use levels were determined by examining governmental reports on prescribing rates including the Australian Statistics on Medicines (ASM) reports, drug use reports released by the Drug Utilisation Sub Committee (DUSC) and PBS statistics. Results Of the 93 medicines included in the Prescrire 2019 “Drug to avoid” list included, 57 (61%) were approved in Australia in 2019 including 9 (16%) that were sold as over-the-counter medicines, 35 (38%) were listed on the PBS, 22 (24%) were registered but not listed on the PBS. Although most of these medicines were used infrequently, 16 (46%) had substantial use despite serious safety concerns. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors were used by 22% of patients receiving a treatment for diabetes in 2016. More than 50,000 patients received an anti-dementia medicine in 2014, a 19% increase since 2009. Denosumab became the 8th medicine, in terms of total sales, funded by the Australian Government in 2017–2018. Conclusions Prescrire’s assessments provide a reliable external benchmark to assess the current use of medicines in Australia. Sixteen “drugs to avoid”, judged to be more harmful than beneficial based on systematic, independent evidence reviews, are in substantial use in Australia. These results raise serious concerns about the awareness of Australian clinicians of medicine safety and efficacy. Medicines safety has become an Australian National Health Priority. Regulatory and reimbursement agencies should review the marketing and funding status of medicines which have not been shown to provide an efficacy and safety at least similar to alternative therapeutic options.

2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110257
Author(s):  
Steve Kisely ◽  
Dante Dangelo-Kemp ◽  
Mark Taylor ◽  
Dennis Liu ◽  
Simon Graham ◽  
...  

Objective: To assess the impact, in the Australian setting, of the COVID-19 lockdown on antipsychotic supplies for patients with schizophrenia following a prescription from a new medical consultation when compared to the same periods in the previous 4 years. A secondary objective was to assess the volume of all antipsychotic supplies, from new and repeat prescriptions, over these same periods. Methods: A retrospective pharmaceutical claims database study was undertaken, using the Department of Human Services Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 10% sample. The study population included all adult patients with three or more supplies of oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia at any time between 1 June 2015 and 31 May 2020. The primary outcome compared volumes of dispensed antipsychotics from new prescriptions (which require a medical consultation) between 1 April and 31 May each year from 2016 to 2020. This was to analyse the period during which the Australian Government imposed a lockdown due to COVID-19 (April to May 2020) when compared the same periods in previous years. Results: There was a small (5.7%) reduction in the number of antipsychotics dispensed from new prescriptions requiring a consultation, from 15,244 to 14,372, between April and May 2019 and the same period in 2020, respectively. However, this reduction was not statistically significant ( p = 0.75) after adjusting for treatment class, age, gender, location and provider type. Conclusion: The COVID-19 restrictions during April and May 2020 had no significant impact on the volume of antipsychotics dispensed from new prescriptions for patients with schizophrenia when compared to the volume of antipsychotics dispensed from new prescriptions during the same period in previous years.


Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (19) ◽  
pp. e19881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenbo Nie ◽  
Ping Xu ◽  
Chunyan Hao ◽  
Yingying Chen ◽  
Yanling Yin ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Mansfield

Objective To assess the degree to which reimbursement prices in Australia and England differ for a range of generic drugs, and to analyse the supply- and demand-side factors that may contribute to these differences. Methods Australian and English reimbursement prices were compared for a range of generic drugs using pricing information obtained from government websites. Next, a literature review was conducted to identify supply- and demand-side factors that could affect generic prices in Australia and England. Various search topics were identified addressing potential supply-side (e.g. market approval, intellectual property protection of patented drugs, generic pricing policy, market size, generic supply chain and discounting practices) and demand-side (consumers, prescribers and pharmacists) factors. Related terms were searched in academic databases, official government websites, national statistical databases and internet search engines. Results Analysis of drug reimbursement prices for 15 generic molecules (representing 45 different drug presentations) demonstrated that Australian prices were on average over 7-fold higher than in England. Significant supply-side differences included aspects of pricing policy, the relative size of the generics markets and the use of clawback policies. Major differences in demand-side policies related to generic prescribing, pharmacist substitution and consumer incentives. Conclusions Despite recent reforms, the Australian Government continues to pay higher prices than its English counterpart for many generic medications. The results suggest that particular policy areas may benefit from review in Australia, including the length of the price-setting process, the frequency of subsequent price adjustments, the extent of price competition between originators and generics, medical professionals’ knowledge about generic medicines and incentives for generic prescribing. What is known about the topic? Prices of generic drugs have been the subject of much scrutiny over recent years. From 2005 to 2010 the Australian Government responded to observations that Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prices for many generics were higher than in numerous comparable countries by instituting several reforms aimed at reducing the prices of generics. Despite this, several studies have demonstrated that prices for generic statins (one class of cholesterol-lowering drug) are higher in Australia compared with England and many other developed countries, and prices of numerous other generics remain higher than in the USA and New Zealand. Recently there has been increasing interest in why these differences exist. What does this paper add? By including a much larger range of commonly used and costly generic drugs, this paper builds significantly on the limited previous investigations of generic drug prices in Australia and England. Additionally, this is the first comprehensive investigation of multiple supply- and, in particular, demand-side factors that may explain any price differences between these countries. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners may contribute to the higher prices of generic medications in Australia compared with England through relatively low rates of generic prescribing. There are also significant implications for health policy makers, as this paper demonstrates that if Australia achieved the same prices as England for many generic drugs there could be substantial savings for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.


2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Rosenstock ◽  
A. J. Lewin ◽  
P. Norwood ◽  
V. Somayaji ◽  
T. T. Nguyen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document