Corrigendum to "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/9996193.].

Challenges and Opportunities With Routinely Collected Data on the Utilization of Cancer Medicines. Perspectives From Health Authority Personnel Across 18 European Countries.

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

Dealing With Immunoglobulin Shortages: A Rationalization Plan From Evidence-Based and Data Collection.

Background: The demand and consumption of immunoglobulins (IgGs) are growing, and there are many difficulties in obtaining supplies. The aim of the study was to analyze the evolution of IgG consumption and cost over a decade, describe the measures implemented for clinical management in the context of regional public health system, and evaluate the initial impact of these measures. Methods: We performed a retrospective longitudinal study including patients of all public health systems in Catalonia. First, we analyzed data on consumption and cost of IgGs during a period between 1 January, 2010 and 31 December 2021. Second, we analyzed the impact of a set of regional measures in terms of annual consumption and cost of IgGs. Regional measures were based on rational evidence-based measures and computer registries. We compared the data of year before applying intervention measures (1 January and 31 December 2020) with data of year after applying clinical management interventions (1 January and 31 December 2021). In addition, detailed information on clinical indications of IgG use between 1 January and 31 December 2021 was collected. Results: Overall, in terms of population, the consumption of IgGs (g/1,000 inhabitants) increased from 40.4 in 2010 to 94.6 in 2021. The mean cost per patient increased from €10,930 in 2010 to €15,595 in 2021. After implementing the measures, the mean annual estimated consumption per patient in 2021 was statistically lower than the mean annual estimated consumption per patient in 2020 (mean difference -47 g, 95% CI -62.28 g, -31.72 g, p = 0.03). The mean annual estimated cost per patient in 2021 was also lower than the mean annual estimated cost per patient in 2020 (the mean difference was -€1,492, 95% CI -€2,132.12, -€851.88; p = 0.027). In 2021, according to evidence-based classification, 75.66% treatments were prescribed for a demonstrated therapeutic evidence-based indication, 12.17% for a developed therapeutic evidence-based indication, 4.66% for non-evidence-based therapeutic role indication, and 8.1% could not be classified because of lack of information. Conclusion: The annual consumption and cost of IgGs have grown steadily over the last decade in our regional public health system. After implementing a set of regional measures, the annual consumption of IgGs per patient and annual cost per patient decreased. However, the decrease has occurred in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which may have influenced their clinical use. Managing the use of IgGs through a rational plan with strategies including evidence-based and data collection may be useful in a shortage situation with growing demand. Registries play a key role in collection of systematic data to analyze, synthesize, and obtain valuable information for decision support. The action developed needs close monitoring in order to verify its effectiveness.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80-90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 - €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab.

The potential benefits of early patient access to new medicines in areas of high unmet medical need are recognised, but uncertainties concerning effectiveness, safety and added value when new medicines are authorised, and subsequently funded based on initial preliminary data only, have important implications. In 2016 olaratumab received accelerated conditional approval from both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma, based on the claims of a substantial reduction in the risk of death with an 11.8-month improvement in median overall survival in a phase II trial in combination with doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin alone. The failure to confirm these benefits in the post-authorisation pivotal trial has highlighted key concerns regarding early access and conditional approvals for new medicines. Concerns include potentially considerable clinical and economic costs, so that patients may have received suboptimal treatment and any money spent has foregone the opportunity to improve access to effective treatments. As a result, it seems reasonable to reconsider current marketing authorisation models and approaches. Potential pathways forward include closer collaboration between regulators, pharmaceutical companies and payers to enhance the generation of rapid and comparative confirmatory trials in a safe and fair manner, with minimal patient exposure as required to achieve robust evidence. Additionally, it may be time to review early access systems, and to explore new avenues regarding who should pay or part pay for new treatments whilst information is being collected as part of any obligations for conditional marketing authorisation. Greater co-operation between countries regarding the collection of data in routine clinical care, and further research on post-marketing data analysis and interpretation, may also contribute to improved appraisal and continued access to new innovative cancer treatments.

Call for Action: Benzodiazepine Prescription Prevalence Analysis Shows Off-Label Prescription in One in Eleven Citizens.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines have a good safety profile. Nevertheless, off-label use of these drugs may increase the risk of falls, dependence, and memory loss. Off-label prescription use is not highly prevalent. Studies have not researched the factors that influence off-label prescription use. We aim to identify the prevalence of off-label use of benzodiazepines in Barcelona and explore sociodemographic factors that may be involved for professionals and patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional study in Barcelona was carried out. Data from professionals were obtained from the Medical Official College of Barcelona. Patients' healthcare data were extracted from the electronic prescription system DataMart and from the Catalan Health System Observatory (catchment of 97% of the prescription system). Two multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors of off-label prescription use; one focused on the patients' characteristics and the other focused on professionals' characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 9.7% of Barcelona's citizens used benzodiazepine prescriptions; 96.1% of them were off-label uses. The most common reason was long-term use (95.8%). Elderly patients were the most common demographic that was exposed to off-label use (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). Family doctors (B = 38.87, 95% CI 25.25-35.50) and psychiatrists (B = 16.93; 95% CI 11.50-22.35) were the largest groups of off-label prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of benzodiazepine off-label prescriptions in our environment is very high, especially when the length of the treatment is considered. Implementation of evidenced-based strategies to facilitate more effective prescription practices is required.

Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The "introduction" of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers.

Payers' Views of the Changes Arising through the Possible Adoption of Adaptive Pathways.

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward.

Introduction and Utilization of High Priced HCV Medicines across Europe; Implications for the Future.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a widespread transmittable disease with a diagnosed prevalence of 2.0%. Fortunately, it is now curable in most patients. Sales of medicines to treat HCV infection grew 2.7% per year between 2004 and 2011, enhanced by the launch of the protease inhibitors (PIs) boceprevir (BCV) and telaprevir (TVR) in addition to ribavirin and pegylated interferon (pegIFN). Costs will continue to rise with new treatments including sofosbuvir, which now include interferon free regimens. OBJECTIVE: Assess the uptake of BCV and TVR across Europe from a health authority perspective to offer future guidance on dealing with new high cost medicines. METHODS: Cross-sectional descriptive study of medicines to treat HCV (pegIFN, ribavirin, BCV and TVR) among European countries from 2008 to 2013. Utilization measured in defined daily doses (DDDs)/1000 patients/quarter (DIQs) and expenditure in Euros/DDD. Health authority activities to influence treatments categorized using the 4E methodology (Education, Engineering, Economics and Enforcement). RESULTS: Similar uptake of BCV and TVR among European countries and regions, ranging from 0.5 DIQ in Denmark, Netherlands and Slovenia to 1.5 DIQ in Tayside and Catalonia in 2013. However, different utilization of the new PIs vs. ribavirin indicates differences in dual vs. triple therapy, which is down to factors including physician preference and genotypes. Reimbursed prices for BCV and TVR were comparable across countries. CONCLUSION: There was reasonable consistency in the utilization of BCV and TVR among European countries in comparison with other high priced medicines. This may reflect the social demand to limit the transmission of HCV. However, the situation is changing with new curative medicines for HCV genotype 1 (GT1) with potentially an appreciable budget impact. These concerns have resulted in different prices across countries, with their impact on budgets and patient outcomes monitored in the future to provide additional guidance.

Different initiatives across Europe to enhance losartan utilization post generics: impact and implications.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need for health authorities across Europe to fully realize potential savings from increased use of generics to sustain their healthcare systems. A variety of strategies were used across Europe following the availability of generic losartan, the first angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to be approved and marketed, to enhance its prescribing vs. single-sourced drugs in the class. Demand-side strategies ranged from 100% co-payment for single-sourced ARBs in Denmark to no specific measures. We hypothesized this heterogeneity of approaches would provide opportunities to explore prescribing in a class following patent expiry. OBJECTIVE: Contrast the impact of the different approaches among European countries and regions to the availability of generic losartan to provide future guidance. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective segmented regression analyses applying linear random coefficient models with country specific intercepts and slopes were used to assess the impact of the various initiatives across Europe following the availability of generic losartan. Utilization measured in defined daily doses (DDDs). Price reductions for generic losartan were also measured. RESULTS: Utilization of losartan was over 90% of all ARBs in Denmark by the study end. Multiple measures in Sweden and one English primary care group also appreciably enhanced losartan utilization. Losartan utilization actually fell in some countries with no specific demand-side measures. Considerable differences were seen in the prices of generic losartan. CONCLUSION: Delisting single-sourced ARBs produced the greatest increase in losartan utilization. Overall, multiple demand-side measures are needed to change physician prescribing habits to fully realize savings from generics. There is no apparent "spill over" effect from one class to another to influence future prescribing patterns even if these are closely related.

Multiple policies to enhance prescribing efficiency for established medicines in Europe with a particular focus on demand-side measures: findings and future implications.

INTRODUCTION: The appreciable growth in pharmaceutical expenditure has resulted in multiple initiatives across Europe to lower generic prices and enhance their utilization. However, considerable variation in their use and prices. OBJECTIVE: Assess the influence of multiple supply and demand-side initiatives across Europe for established medicines to enhance prescribing efficiency before a decision to prescribe a particular medicine. Subsequently utilize the findings to suggest potential future initiatives that countries could consider. METHOD: An analysis of different methodologies involving cross national and single country retrospective observational studies on reimbursed use and expenditure of PPIs, statins, and renin-angiotensin inhibitor drugs among European countries. RESULTS: Nature and intensity of the various initiatives appreciably influenced prescribing behavior and expenditure, e.g., multiple measures resulted in reimbursed expenditure for PPIs in Scotland in 2010 56% below 2001 levels despite a 3-fold increase in utilization and in the Netherlands, PPI expenditure fell by 58% in 2010 vs. 2000 despite a 3-fold increase in utilization. A similar picture was seen with prescribing restrictions, i.e., (i) more aggressive follow-up of prescribing restrictions for patented statins and ARBs resulted in a greater reduction in the utilization of patented statins in Austria vs. Norway and lower utilization of patented ARBs vs. generic ACEIs in Croatia than Austria. However, limited impact of restrictions on esomeprazole in Norway with the first prescription or recommendation in hospital where restrictions do not apply. Similar findings when generic losartan became available in Western Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple demand-side measures are needed to influence prescribing patterns. When combined with supply-side measures, activities can realize appreciable savings. Health authorities cannot rely on a "spill over" effect between classes to affect changes in prescribing.

Dabigatran - a continuing exemplar case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive models to optimize the utilization of new drugs.

BACKGROUND: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are effectiveness, safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies showed dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. These concerns resulted in extensive activities pre- to post-launch to manage its introduction. OBJECTIVE: To (i) review authority activities across countries, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications based on post-launch activities. METHODOLOGY: (i) Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran, (ii) development of guidance for key stakeholder groups through an iterative process, (iii) refining guidance following post launch studies. RESULTS: Plethora of activities to manage dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions and monitoring of prescribing post launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities. Post-launch activities include increasing use of patient registries to monitor the safety and effectiveness of new drugs in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

Can authorities appreciably enhance the prescribing of oral generic risperidone to conserve resources? Findings from across Europe and their implications.

BACKGROUND: Generic atypical antipsychotic drugs offer health authorities opportunities for considerable savings. However, schizophrenia and bipolar disorders are complex diseases that require tailored treatments. Consequently, generally there have been limited demand-side measures by health authorities to encourage the preferential prescribing of generics. This is unlike the situation with hypertension, hypercholaesterolaemia or acid-related stomach disorders.The objectives of this study were to compare the effect of the limited demand-side measures in Western European countries and regions on the subsequent prescribing of risperidone following generics; to utilise the findings to provide future guidance to health authorities; and where possible, to investigate the utilisation of generic versus originator risperidone and the prices for generic risperidone. METHODS: Principally, this was a segmented regression analysis of retrospective time-series data of the effect of the various initiatives in Belgium, Ireland, Scotland and Sweden following the introduction of generic risperidone. The study included patients prescribed at least one atypical antipsychotic drug up to 20 months before and up to 20 months after generic risperidone. In addition, retrospective observational studies were carried out in Austria and Spain (Catalonia) from 2005 to 2011 as well as one English primary care organisation (Bury Primary Care Trust (PCT)). RESULTS: There was a consistent steady reduction in risperidone as a percentage of total selected atypical antipsychotic utilisation following generics. A similar pattern was seen in Austria and Spain, with stable utilisation in one English PCT. However, there was considerable variation in the utilisation of generic risperidone, ranging from 98% of total risperidone in Scotland to only 14% in Ireland. Similarly, the price of generic risperidone varied considerably. In Scotland, generic risperidone was only 16% of pre-patent loss prices versus 72% in Ireland. CONCLUSION: Consistent findings of no increased prescribing of risperidone post generics with limited specific demand-side measures suggests no 'spillover' effect from one class to another encouraging the preferential prescribing of generic atypical antipsychotic drugs. This is exacerbated by the complexity of the disease area and differences in the side-effects between treatments. There appeared to be no clinical issues with generic risperidone, and prices inversely reflected measures to enhance their utilisation.

Detección de interacciones farmacológicas en la prescripción entre niveles asistenciales en pacientes infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana / Detection of drug-drug interactions in prescription between levels of health care in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

No disponible

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in a regional health service: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: To analyse the extent and profile of outpatient regular dispensation of antipsychotics, both in combination and monotherapy, in the Barcelona Health Region (Spain), focusing on the use of clozapine and long-acting injections (LAI). METHODS: Antipsychotic drugs dispensed for people older than 18 and processed by the Catalan Health Service during 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. First and second generation antipsychotic drugs (FGA and SGA) from the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification (ATC) code N05A (except lithium) were included. A patient selection algorithm was designed to identify prescriptions regularly dispensed. Variables included were age, gender, antipsychotic type, route of administration and number of packages dispensed. RESULTS: A total of 117,811 patients were given any antipsychotic, of whom 71,004 regularly received such drugs. Among the latter, 9,855 (13.9%) corresponded to an antipsychotic combination, 47,386 (66.7%) to monotherapy and 13,763 (19.4%) to unspecified combinations. Of the patients given antipsychotics in association, 58% were men. Olanzapine (37.1%) and oral risperidone (36.4%) were the most common dispensations. Analysis of the patients dispensed two antipsychotics (57.8%) revealed 198 different combinations, the most frequent being the association of FGA and SGA (62.0%). Clozapine was dispensed to 2.3% of patients. Of those who were receiving antipsychotics in combination, 6.6% were given clozapine, being clozapine plus amisulpride the most frequent association (22.8%). A total of 3.800 patients (5.4%) were given LAI antipsychotics, and 2.662 of these (70.1%) were in combination. Risperidone was the most widely used LAI. CONCLUSIONS: The scant evidence available regarding the efficacy of combining different antipsychotics contrasts with the high number and variety of combinations prescribed to outpatients, as well as with the limited use of clozapine.

Comparing policies to enhance prescribing efficiency in Europe through increasing generic utilization: changes seen and global implications.

AIM: The aim of this article was to evaluate the influence of different demand-side measures to enhance the prescribing of generics in ambulatory care based on cross-national comparisons. METHODS: An observational retrospective study was conducted using administrative databases from across Europe, documenting changes in reimbursed utilization and expenditure of different proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and statins between 2001 and 2007, alongside different reforms to enhance prescribing efficiency. Utilization was converted to defined daily doses (DDDs) and expenditures were converted to euros. Demand-side measures were collated under the '4 Es'--education, engineering, economics and enforcement--to enable comparisons on the nature and intensity of reforms between countries. RESULTS: There were considerable differences in the utilization of generics and patent-protected PPIs and statins among Western European countries. Decreased utilization of omeprazole and simvastatin, alongside increased utilization of esomeprazole, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, was seen in countries with limited demand-side measures to counteract commercial pressures. Prescribing restrictions, or a combination of education, prescribing targets and financial incentives, had the greatest influence on enhancing the utilization of omeprazole and simvastatin. For example, there was a threefold reduction in the utilization of atorvastatin in Austria following prescribing restrictions. Multiple demand-side interventions generally had a greater influence than single interventions, with the impact appearing additive. Multiple interventions coupled with initiatives to lower prices of generics considerably enhanced prescribing efficiency. CONCLUSION: This cross-national study has demonstrated considerable variation in the utilization and expenditure of PPIs and statins across Europe, providing opportunities to further improve prescribing efficiency. The '4 Es' do provide an understandable methodology to document and compare the influence of different demand-side measures, with the influence varying by their extent and intensity. Further reforms are essential given current financial pressures. Consequently, further research will concentrate on the potential to develop a scoring system to help predict the possible impact of different demand-side measures on future utilization patterns.