Discontinuation of reimbursement of benzodiazepines in the Netherlands: does it make a difference?

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to control chronic benzodiazepine use and its costs in the Netherlands, health care insurance reimbursement of this medication was stopped on January 1st 2009. This study investigates whether benzodiazepine prescriptions issued by general practitioners changed during the first two years following implementation of this regulation. METHODS: Registry study based on data from all benzodiazepine users derived from the Registration Network Groningen. This general practice-based research network collects longitudinal data on the primary care administered to about 30,000 patients. Based on the number of quarterly accumulated prescription days, a comparison was made of benzodiazepine prescriptions issued between 2007/2008 and 2009/2010. Also investigated was which type of user (i.e. short-term or long-term) showed the most change. RESULTS: Information on benzodiazepine prescriptions among 5,200 patients from 16 consecutive trimesters between 2007 and 2010 was available for analysis. A significant reduction in prescription days was observed between 2007/2008 and 2009/2010. Overall, an estimated 1.73 (CI:-1.94 to -1.53; p<0.001) days were less prescribed per trimester after the termination of reimbursement. In particular, short-term users experienced a reduction in prescription days in 2009 and 2010. The number of long-term users decreased by 2.3%, while the number of individuals that did not use increased by 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: A total reduction of almost 14 prescription days was observed over eight trimesters after implementation of the regulation to terminate the reimbursement of benzodiazepines. Short-term users were mainly responsible for this reduction in prescription days in 2009 and 2010. Although long-term users did not alter their benzodiazepine use in 2009 and 2010, the number of long-term users decreased slightly.

Role of the general practitioner during the active breast cancer treatment phase: an analysis of health care use.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the actual involvement of the general practitioner (GP) during the active breast cancer treatment phase. Therefore, this study explored (disease-specific) primary health care use among women undergoing active treatment for breast cancer compared with women without breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 185 women with a first diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer between 1998 and 2007 were identified in the primary care database of the Registration Network Groningen and matched with a reference population of 548 women without breast cancer on birth year and GP. RESULTS: Since diagnosis, patients with breast cancer had twice as many face-to-face contacts compared with women from the reference population (median 6.0 vs 3.0/year, Mann-Whitney (M-W) test p < 0.001). The median number of drug prescriptions and referrals was also significantly higher among patients than among the reference population (11.0 vs 7.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001 and 1.0 vs 0.0/year, M-W test p < 0.001). More patients than women from the reference population had face-to-face contacts or were prescribed drugs for reasons related to breast cancer and its treatment, including gastrointestinal problems, psychological reasons and endocrine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: During the active breast cancer treatment phase, GPs are involved in the management of treatment-related side effects and psychological symptoms, as well as in the administration of endocrine therapy. Based on the findings of this study, interventions across the primary/secondary interface can be planned to improve quality of life and other outcomes in patients undergoing breast cancer treatment.

Time spent in primary care for hip osteoarthritis patients once the diagnosis is set: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on time to referral to orthopaedic surgery has predominantly used hip complaints as starting point instead of the moment the diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip is established, therefore little is known about the length of time a patient diagnosed with hip OA stays under the care of a general practitioner (GP). No knowledge on factors of influence on this time period is available either. Aim of this study was thus to determine the time an incident hip OA patient stays in the care of a GP until referral to an orthopaedic department. Influencing factors were also analyzed. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted based on data over a 10-year period from a general practice-based registration network (17 GPs, > 30,000 patients registered yearly). Patients with the diagnosis of hip OA were included. A survival analysis was used to determine time until referral to an orthopaedic department, and to determine factors of influence on this time. RESULTS: Of 391 patients diagnosed with hip OA, 121 (31%) were referred; average survival time until referral was 82.0 months (95% CI 76.6-87.5). Less contact with the GP for hip complaints before the diagnosis of hip OA was established resulted in a decreased time to referral. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that patients with hip OA were under the care of a general practitioner, and thus in primary care, for a considerable amount of time once the diagnosis of hip OA was established.

Analyzing generic and branded substitution patterns in the Netherlands using prescription data.

BACKGROUND: As in other societies, pharmaceutical expenditures in the Netherlands are rising every year. As a consequence, needs for cost control are often expressed. One possible solution for cost control could come through increasing generic substitution by pharmacists. We aim to analyse the extent and nature of substitution in recent years and estimate the likelihood of generic or branded substitution in Dutch pharmacies in relation to various characteristics. METHODS: We utilized a linked prescription dataset originating from a general practitioner (GP) and a pharmacy database, both from the northern Netherlands. We selected specific drugs of interest, containing about 55,000 prescriptions from 15 different classes. We used a crossed generalized linear mixed model to estimate the effects that certain patient and pharmacy characteristics as well as timing have on the likelihood that a prescription will eventually be substituted by the pharmacist. RESULTS: Generic substitution occurred at 25% of the branded prescriptions. Generic substitution was more likely to occur earlier in time after patent expiry and to patients that were older and more experienced in their drug use. Individually owned pharmacies had a lower probability of generic substitution compared to chain pharmacies. Oppositely, branded substitution occurred in 10% of generic prescriptions and was positively related to the patients' experience in branded use. Individually owned pharmacies were more likely to substitute a generic drug to a branded compared to other pharmacies. Antidepressant and PPI prescriptions were less prone to generic and more prone to branded substitution. CONCLUSION: Analysis of prescription substitution by the pharmacist revealed strong relations between substitution and patient experience on drug use, pharmacy status and timing. These findings can be utilised to design further strategies to enhance generic substitution.

Patients with shoulder complaints in general practice: consumption of medical care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the medical consumption [general practitioner (GP) consultation, referrals, medication consumption] of patients with shoulder complaints in general practice. METHODS: Data were obtained from a primary-care medical registration network. All patients aged ≥18 years with new shoulder complaints who consulted their general practitioner in 1998 were included, and were followed 10 years beyond the initial consultation. RESULTS: A total of 526 incident cases were identified (average age 47 years, 65% women and average follow-up 7.6 years). Nearly half of the patients consulted their GP only once. For 79% of those patients, a wait-and-see policy or a prescription for NSAIDs sufficed. During follow-up, 65% of all patients were prescribed medication. Medication consumption was significantly higher among men than women, and higher for the 45- to 64-year age group compared with the younger group. A total of 199 patients were referred, of which 84% was to a physiotherapist and 16% to secondary care. Only two patients had surgery, performed by an orthopaedic surgeon. The GP recorded a diagnosis in only 14% of patients; rotator cuff disorder being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of patients with a new shoulder complaint consult their GP only once. Medical consumption in general practice is highest for male shoulder patients and the 45- to 64-year age group. Shoulder problems are mainly an issue for primary care.

Prescribing of asthma medication in primary care for children aged under 10.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prescriptions of asthma medication for children in primary care. METHODS: Data on prescriptions of asthma medication for children aged 0-9 years were collected from a general practice-based network in the north eastern part of the Netherlands. Prevalence, incidence, indications, continuation beyond the age of 6 years, and predictors of continuation, were determined. RESULTS: Prevalence of prescriptions was about 80 per 1000 person years. An asthma diagnosis was registered in 40% of the children with a first prescription and in 70% of the children with six or more prescriptions. Discontinuation of asthma medication was between 60 and 90%. Continuation was more likely in children with a first prescription at age 2 or 3 as compared to children starting treatment at age < or =1 year. Children with prescriptions for beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids were more likely to continue treatment than children with beta2-agonist monotherapy prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Continuation of asthma medication in children is low. Age at first prescription and the type of asthma medication are predictors of continuation of asthma medication from preschool into school-age.

Screening for depression and anxiety: correlates of non-response and cohort attrition in the Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA).

A major problem in the analysis of attrition of cohorts in studies on mental health problems is that data on those who do not participate at the outset of a study are largely unavailable. It is not known how underlying psychopathology affects the first stages of screening where non-response and selectivity are usually highest. This article presents results of one of the centres of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), a longitudinal study aimed at describing the long-term course and consequences of depression and anxiety disorders. The aim is to describe the different ways of attrition during the first NESDA-wave in a cohort of patients aged 18-65 years of the Registration Network Groningen and to analyse whether attrition is related to gender, age and psychopathology as recorded in general practice. The attrition of the study cohort (n = 8475) was highest during the first stages, eventually leading to a population of 169 patients only who participated in the full NESDA-programme. Probabilities of transition from one stage of the screening process to the next were regressed on selected background variables using binary logistic regression. Correlates of participation were being female and being older (>40). Psychopathology was an important variable in the formation of the initial sample cohort, but only had a weak influence on patient response to the screening questionnaire. Study design factors had a stronger impact on the changing composition of the cohort at each screening stage compared to patient factors.

Assessment of patient's experiences across the interface between primary and secondary care: Consumer Quality Index Continuum of care.

OBJECTIVE: Development and validation of a questionnaire that measures patients' experiences of collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using the method of the consumer quality index and validated in a cross-sectional study among a random sample of patients referred to medical specialists in the Netherlands. Validation included factor analysis, ascertain internal consistency, and the discriminative ability. RESULTS: The response rate was 65% (1404 patients). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that four domains could be distinguished (i.e. GP Approach; GP Referral; Specialist; Collaboration). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.51 to 0.93 indicating sufficient internal consistency to make comparison of groups of respondents possible. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the domains were <0.4, except between the domains GP Approach and GP Referral. All domains clearly produced discriminating scores for groups with different characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The Consumer Quality Index (CQ-index) Continuum of Care can be a useful instrument to assess aspects of the collaboration between GPs and specialists from patients' perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It can be used to give feedback to both medical professionals and policy makers. Such feedback creates an opportunity for implementing specific improvements and evaluating quality improvement projects.

What factors explain the differences in morbidity estimations among general practice registration networks in the Netherlands? A first analysis.

BACKGROUND: Information on the incidence and prevalence of diseases is a core indicator for public health. There are several ways to estimate morbidity in a population (e.g., surveys, healthcare registers). In this paper, we focus on one particular source: general practice based registers. Dutch general practice is a potentially valid source because nearly all non-institutionalized inhabitants are registered with a general practitioner (GP), and the GP fulfils the role as "gatekeeper". However, there are some unexplained differences among morbidity estimations calculated from the data of various general practice registration networks (GPRNs). OBJECTIVE: To describe and categorize factors that may explain the differences in morbidity rates from different GPRNs, and to provide an overview of these factors in Dutch GPRNs. RESULTS: Four categories of factors are distinguished: "healthcare system", "methodological characteristics", "general practitioner", and "patient". The overview of 11 Dutch GPRNs reveals considerable differences in factors. CONCLUSION: Differences in morbidity estimation depend on factors in the four categories. Most attention is dedicated to the factors in the "methodology characteristics" category, mainly because these factors can be directly influenced by the GPRN.

Determinants for the adoption of angiotensin II receptor blockers by general practitioners.

Results of studies conducted 10-20 years ago show the prominence of commercial information sources in the adoption process of new drugs. Over the past decade, there has been a growing emphasis on practicing evidence-based medicine in drug prescribing. This raises the question whether professional information sources currently counterbalance the influence of commercial information sources in the adoption process. The aim of this study was to identify determinants influencing the adoption of a new drug class, the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), by general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands. A retrospective study was conducted to assess prevalent ARB prescribing for hypertensive patients using the Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database. We conducted a survey among all GPs who participated in the IPCI project in 2003 to assess their exposure to commercial and professional information sources, perceived benefits and risks of ARBs, perceived influences of the professional network, and general characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression was applied to identify determinants of ARB adoption while adjusting for patient characteristics. Data were obtained from 70 GPs and 9470 treated hypertensive patients. A total of 1093 patients received ARBs (12%). GPs who reported frequent use of commercial information sources were more likely to prescribe ARBs routinely in preference to other antihypertensives, whereas GPs who used a prescribing decision support system and those who were involved in pharmacotherapy education were less likely to prescribe ARBs. Other factors that were associated with higher levels of ARB adoption included a more positive perception of ARBs regarding their effectiveness in lowering blood pressure, and working in single-handed practices or in rural areas. Aside from determinants related to the patient population, adoption of a new drug class among Dutch GPs is still determined more by their reliance on promotional information than by their use of professional information sources.

Uptake of angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in prescribing of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) as initial and second-line treatment of hypertension. METHODS: We performed a cohort study in the Integrated Primary Care Information database, a general practice research database in The Netherlands. We included hypertensive patients who were newly treated with antihypertensive drugs between 1996 and 1999. Initial treatment was defined as the first prescribed antihypertensive drug after diagnosis of hypertension. As second-line treatment, we considered prescriptions of a second antihypertensive drug class, either as switch or addition. We used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis to estimate time trends in use of ARBs as initial or second-line treatment. RESULTS: In total, 8% of the 3,102 newly treated hypertensive patients received ARBs as initial treatment. Initial ARB use increased significantly from 4% to 10% during the period 1996-1999, whereas calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) use decreased. ARBs were used as second-line treatment in less than 4% of 2,544 patients who were initially treated with an antihypertensive drug other than an ARB: 2% switched to an ARB (mostly from ACE-Is) and 1% received ARBs as add-on treatment. Diuretics and beta-blockers were used five to ten times more often as add-on treatment than ARBs. CONCLUSION: ARBs achieved a position in the treatment of hypertension as initial rather than second-line therapy.

Does comorbidity explain trends in prescribing of newer antihypertensive agents?

OBJECTIVE: Concerns exist about heavily prescribing of new drugs when the evidence on hard outcomes is still limited. This has been the case for the newer classes of antihypertensives, especially in hypertensive patients without additional comorbidity. The association between comorbidity and trends in prescribing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) was examined for the period 1996-2000. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the Integrated Primary Care Information database, which contains medical records from more than 100 general practitioners in the Netherlands. Prevalent drug use in hypertensive patients was determined per calendar year. As initial treatment, the first antihypertensive drug prescribed within 1 year after diagnosis of hypertension was considered. Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of receiving either ACE-I or ARBs. RESULTS: The overall prevalent ACE-I use remained stable (31%), but it increased from 33 to 41% in hypertensive patients with diabetes, heart failure, proteinuria and/or renal insufficiency. ARB use increased significantly from 2 to 12%; this trend did not differ between patients with or without specific comorbidities. Initial ACE-I use slightly decreased (from 29% to 24%), whereas initial ARB use significantly increased (from 4% to 12%). ACE-I were more likely to be the first treatment in patients with diabetes [odds ratio (OR)=3.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2-4.9] or hypercholesterolemia (OR=1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.8). ARBs were more likely to be the initial treatment in patients with asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR=1.6; 1.2-2.3), diabetes (OR=2.1; 1.5-2.9) or hypercholesterolemia (OR=1.7; 1.2-2.4). CONCLUSIONS: The increased use of ACE-I is mostly restricted to hypertensive patients with comorbidities for which their use has been recommended. Trends in prescribing of ARBs are not related to relevant comorbidities.

Pharmacoeconomics of gastrointestinal drug utilisation prior and post Helicobacter pylori eradication.

BACKGROUND: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori prevents recurrence of peptic ulcer. In pharmacoeconomic analyses it is often presumed that after successful eradication no more gastrointestinal drugs are used. We investigated this presumed positive monetary effect using General Practitioners prescribing data, including information in diagnosis. METHODS: From the RNG-database we identified patients with a H. pylori eradication in the years 1997-2000. H. pylori eradication was defined as a prescription of two antibiotics and one gastrointestinal drug on the same day. Patients were divided into a group with diagnosed ulcers and a group without diagnosed ulcers. Gastrointestinal drug costs were calculated for 4 months prior to eradication and 9-12 months post eradication. For comparison costs in all periods were expressed per patient per period. For statistical analysis the paired t-test was used. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were eligible for evaluation. Of these patients 35 had a diagnosed ulcer and 67 had not. Generally the number of patients on gastrointestinal drugs decreased (61% prior vs. 33% post), however, the drug costs did not change (Euro 33 prior vs. Euro 34 post). Costs for proton pump inhibitors increased post eradication (Euro 14 prior vs. Euro 28 post). The ulcer and nonulcer group showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Helicobacter pylori eradication is thought to be cost effective, however, we did not find a decrease in costs for all gastrointestinal drugs. There may be a great pharmacoeconomical advantage when it is possible to predict which patients are more likely to 'fail' eradication therapy.

Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity between the identification of sub-optimal treatment based on clinical information and computer generated indicators. Indicators that are associated with sub-optimal treatment in one of the four steps of asthma management were assessed. DESIGN: The ability of each indicator to identify patients with sub-optimal asthma treatment from computerised general practitioner (GP) prescription records was assessed by comparing them with the results of an individual patient assessment using clinical data. SETTING: Chronic asthma patients ( n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs. MAIN MEASURES: The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined. RESULTS: The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting beta-agonist, had an acceptable sensitivity (0.86), but a low PPV (0.52). The two step-2 indicators, targeting under-prescription of inhaled corticosteroids, had sensitivities of 0.74 and 0.37 and PPVs of 0.46 and 0.71, respectively. The step-3 indicator, which targeted under-dosing of inhaled corticosteroids, had a sensitivity of 0.07 and a PPV of 0.2. The fourth indicator, focusing on under-prescription of long-acting beta-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample. DISCUSSION: None of the indicators investigated was considered valid for assessing prescriber performance, despite having good face and content validity. Performance indicators that have not been validated can only provide a broad-brush approach for assessing prescribing quality and should be used with extreme caution.