4.3 Article

Lipid-lowering drug use in Italian primary care: effects of reimbursement criteria revision

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 619-625

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-007-0459-1

关键词

lipid-lowering drug; statins; omega-3 fatty acids; prevalence of use; general practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess whether the prescribing pattern of lipid-lowering drugs (LLD) changed after reimbursement criteria revision in a general practice in southern Italy. Methods From the Caserta-1 Local Health Service database, 93 general practitioners (GPs) who had consistently sent data about their patients during the years 2003-2005 were recruited. Prevalence of use and incidence of new treatments were calculated for each year, stratified by three drug cohorts: statins, omega-3 fatty acids, and fibrates. Subanalyses by gender, age, and indication of use were performed. Results Overall, 1-year prevalence of LLD use increased from 2003 to 2004. After reimbursement criteria revision (November 2004), a slight decrease was observed for statins, from 41.1 (95% CI: 39.9-42.2) per 1,000 inhabitants in 2004 to 40.3 (39.2-41.5) in 2005, while omega-3 utilization fell markedly: 14.6 (13.9-15.3) vs. 5.4 (5.0-5.8). The use of both statins and omega-3 fatty acids was reduced particularly for primary prevention. On the other hand, utilization of statins increased in diabetic patients and as secondary prevention from 2004 to 2005. Concerning individual molecules, 1-year prevalence of use of any statin declined from 2004 to 2005, except for rosuvastatin. Conclusions Revision of reimbursement criteria led to significant changes in the trend in LLD use in general practice in southern Italy: (1) statin utilization was slightly reduced in 2005, although it increased in certain categories, such as diabetic patients, and (2) omega-3 fatty acid use was strongly reduced even though a higher use in post-infarction cases was reported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据