Effectiveness of a preschool asthma education programme, compared to usual care, on the frequency of acute asthma events: a community-based cluster randomised trial.

AIM: To determine whether an asthma intervention delivered within preschools can improve asthma outcomes in children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, we undertook a pragmatic, single-blind, cluster randomised trial in Auckland, New Zealand. We randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) preschools, and their children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma, to receive an asthma intervention (a 12-month respiratory nurse-led asthma assessment using an evidence-based, web-based tool and a class-based asthma education programme for four months), or a control intervention (a class-based science education programme for four months). Both groups received standard asthma management by their primary care physician. The primary outcome was the proportion of children that had at least one unscheduled ("urgent") medical or ED attendance for asthma over 12 months. RESULTS: We randomised 171 preschools, 85 to the intervention (341 children) and 86 to the control (334 children). We found no difference in the primary outcome (intervention: 216/341, 63% vs control: 181/334, 54%: adjusted Odds Ratio=1.36, 95% Confidence Interval=0.95-1.94, p=0.095). However, compared with the control group, the intervention group had improved and sustained asthma control and fewer asthma symptoms over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combining asthma education with a nurse-led, evidence-based asthma assessment and education intervention led to sustained improvements in asthma control in this preschool population, but its effect on acute events remains unclear.

Te Wero tonu-the challenge continues: Maori access to medicines 2006/07-2012/13 update.

AIM: Analysis of dispensings of prescription medicines in New Zealand in 2006/07 reported large inequities between Maori and non-Maori. This present study has now updated the earlier work by describing variations in disease burden-adjusted medicines access by ethnicity in 2012/13, and changes over time. METHOD: The update has linked prescription medicine data with burden of disease estimates by ethnicity for 2012/13 and comparing with 2006/07. This has re-examined the shortfall in prescriptions for Maori vs non-Maori adjusting for age, population and burden of disease (ie, health loss, in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). RESULTS: After adjusting for age, population and burden of disease, large inequalities still existed for Maori compared with non-Maori, with generally no improvement over the six years. In 2012/13, Maori had 41% lower dispensings overall than non-Maori; this was nominally worse compared with the 37% relative gap in 2006/07, but the trend was not statistically significant. Many complexities and limitations hamper valid interpretation, but large inequities in access and persistence, across many therapeutic groups, remain. The full University of Auckland report details these inequities. CONCLUSION: Large inequities in medicines access for Maori continue. Inequities in access are unacceptable, their causes likely complex and entrenched; we believe they need deeper understanding of systems and barriers, pragmatic ways to monitor outcomes, and an all-of-sector approach and beyond. PHARMAC has committed to strategic action to eliminate inequities in access to medicines by 2025, recognising it needs partners to drive the necessary change. Kei a tatou tonu katoa te wero kia mahikaha, kia mahi tino mohio, me te mahitahi (The challenge continues for us to work harder, work smarter, and work together); everyone in the health sector has a role.

Dispensing patterns for antidiabetic agents in New Zealand: are the guidelines being followed?

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a significant public health issue in New Zealand. Effective management and glycaemic control is critical for reducing diabetes-related complications. Treatment guidelines are well established in New Zealand. Using dispensing data as a proxy for prescribing data, this paper aims to describe the pattern of first- and second-line antidiabetic agent (AA) dispensing for T2DM in New Zealand and assess adherence with treatment guidelines. METHODS: Analysis of national dispensing data for AA medications using the Pharmaceutical Collection database from 2007/08 to 2015/16. RESULTS: Metformin monotherapy remains the most commonly prescribed first-line T2DM medication prescribed, accounting for 85% of initial agents prescribed. Sulfonylureas are the most common second-line agents used, accounting for 70% of all second-line agents. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of adherence with the T2DM treatment guidelines in New Zealand.

A kick in the butt: time to address tobacco waste in New Zealand.

Tobacco consumption is a significant national public health issue. The waste it generates-tobacco product waste (TPW)-is also an environmental hazard. Targeting TPW through novel policies/regulations-such as a cigarette butt deposit scheme-may serve the dual purposes of reducing an environment nuisance and progressing Aotearoa New Zealand to its goal of being smokefree by 2025.

Mind the gap: An analysis of foregone health gains from unfunded cancer medicines in New Zealand.

Publicly funded cancer medicines listed on the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule were compared with those listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. To quantify the health gains offered by the cancer medicines funded in Australia but not in New Zealand, clinical trial data reporting median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were sought. The differences in the median PFS and OS for the unfunded medicines, relative to the comparator medicine funded in NZ, were then assessed against the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC) recommended targets for clinically meaningful health gains. Our analysis confirms that, whilst New Zealand funds fewer cancer medicines than Australia, most of the additional medicines funded in Australia do not deliver clinically meaningful health gains as defined by the ASCO-CRC guidance. This suggests that New Zealand is not missing substantive opportunities for improvements to New Zealand's cancer survival rates through additional medicines funding. A policy of funding more new cancer medicines in order to achieve numerical parity with Australia or other countries would not result in substantive health improvement and would cost significantly more, and investing the millions of dollars needed to achieve funding parity with other countries would not represent good value for money in terms of delivering the best health outcomes for all New Zealanders, rather selective funding of new medicines that demonstrate clear clinical benefit and that are cost-effective and affordable is the sensible approach.

Health and equity impacts of climate change in Aotearoa-New Zealand, and health gains from climate action.

Human-caused climate change poses an increasingly serious and urgent threat to health and health equity. Under all the climate projections reported in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, New Zealand will experience direct impacts, biologically mediated impacts, and socially mediated impacts on health. These will disproportionately affect populations that already experience disadvantage and poorer health. Without rapid global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (particularly from fossil fuels), the world will breach its carbon budget and may experience high levels of warming (land temperatures on average 4-7 degrees Celsius higher by 2100). This level of climate change would threaten the habitability of some parts of the world because of extreme weather, limits on working outdoors, and severely reduced food production. However, well-planned action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could bring about substantial benefits to health, and help New Zealand tackle its costly burden of health inequity and chronic disease.

Self-monitoring blood glucose test strip use with diabetes medicines in people with types 1 and 2 diabetes in New Zealand.

AIMS: (1) To identify actual dispensings of publicly funded blood glucose test strips (SMBG) in New Zealand according to severity of disease, as proxied by the type of medicines prescribed; and (2) To compare these rates with published consensus guidelines on SMBG usage. METHOD: All dispensings of diabetes medicines and blood glucose test strips (SMBG) in 2011 were identified and matched to patients, using encrypted National Health Index numbers (NHIs). Five hierarchical treatment groups were identified, as the use of: -Insulins without oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHs); -Insulins with OHs; -Sulphonylurea-containing OH regimens without insulins (with or without other diabetes medicines); -Metformin alone, with or without glitazones or acarbose; and -No diabetes medication but accessing SMBGs. The average SMBG dispensings to patients in each of these groups was then calculated. The calculation was performed only for 'steady-state' patients, i.e. patients assumed stabilised on the same medication regimen for at least one year. Differences between actual and expected dispensings were calculated from expected daily strip use for each group. RESULTS: An estimated 183,000 patients were dispensed diabetes medicines and/or SMBG during 2011. Of these, 122,000 were identified as 'steady-state' patients. Patient numbers and median ages varied widely across treatment groups and by gender and ethnicity. Dispensing rates for SMBG varied by treatment group, with probable over-dispensing in some groups and under-dispensing in others when compared with published guidelines. In particular there appeared to be relatively large under-dispensing of SMBG in patients requiring insulin (especially the 25-44 age-group or Maori and Pacific peoples) and a high over-dispensing in those using metformin alone or on no diabetic medication. CONCLUSION: There are appreciable variations in the use of SMBG between treatment groups. Adherence to published guidelines may improve efficacy and health outcomes for those using insulin and reduce pain, anxiety and disruption for those using metformin or diet alone for control of their diabetes.

Variation in the use of medicines by ethnicity during 2006/07 in New Zealand: a preliminary analysis.

AIM: To describe variations in dispensing of specific medication groups by ethnicity in New Zealand, adjusting for health need. METHOD: Preliminary linkage of dispensings of prescription medicines in 2006/07 to age/disease burden proxies of health need for Maori, Pacific peoples (Pasifika)--who are mostly of Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, or Cook Islands descent--in New Zealand, and non-Maori/non-Pasifika. These disease burden proxies combine differences in prevalence, age, morbidity, and mortality. Variations were disaggregated by patients being first dispensed medicines ('access') versus subsequent dispensings ('persistence'). RESULTS: Initially, overall age-adjusted incidence of 'scripts' (prescriptions dispensed) to Maori was similar to that of non-Maori. There were differences in therapeutic coverage between Maori and Pasifika, for example greater use of asthma medicines in Maori. However, further adjustments linking with disease burden showed marked variance for a number of diseases. Differences in dispensing included areas of high health need such as heart disease, infections, diabetes, mental health and respiratory disease. Maori had 19-37% lower dispensings overall than non-Maori, with a net difference of nearly 1 million scripts. Maori were both less likely to access medicines, and then after first dispensing had fewer subsequent scripts. Patterns for Pasifika appeared similar, although needs-adjusted analysis is awaited for this population. CONCLUSIONS: Once adjusting for need, there was variable but sizeable differences in medicines dispensed to Maori compared with non-Maori, and likely differences for Pasifika populations. There are however important limitations to this preliminary analysis. Crude and age-standardised metrics may be poor predictors of needs-adjusted gaps in medicines use. In this analysis, solely age-standardised rates tended to underestimate differences once adjusting for burden of disease; future analyses of prescribing patterns should consider better adjusting for disease burden.

Assessing the value for money of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand--PHARMAC's approach to cost-utility analysis.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic analysis that has been used by PHARMAC for nearly 20 years. It is also used by many health funding and assessment agencies internationally. So what is CUA and why is it so important? This article describes the process involved in undertaking CUA, including critical appraisal of clinical evidence; transforming the evidence to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); estimating costs; and how this information is combined to obtain an output that can be used to inform decision-making. The article also describes how PHARMAC uses CUA to prioritise pharmaceuticals for funding in New Zealand.