Projecting the mean costs per patient to the afflicted population yields an estimated total annual cost of $1.7 billion (95% CI: $0.8-$2.6 billion) attributable to moderate to severe psoriasis in Canada. Understanding the interplay between direct costs, lost productivity, and quality of life is critical for accurately identifying and evaluating effective treatments for this disease.

Objective: To determine the costs and consequences of switching asthma patients, managed in primary care, from a twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), to either a once-daily or another twice-daily ICS. Design: This was a case-control study based on an interrogation of the General Practice Research Database in the UK, for patients with a Read code of asthma who were managed between 1990 and 2001, and who had received at least two prescriptions for a twice-daily ICS within 12 months, before switching to a once-daily ICS (cases) or another twice-daily ICS (controls). Data on resource use was collected for one year before and after the switch. Patients were stratified according to whether their treatment step had been stepped up, stepped down or remained unchanged. Setting: A modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Main outcome measures: Compliance with ICS, and the cost of drug and non-drug resource use, for the year before and after the switch. Results: Switching patients managed in primary care to a once-daily ICS increased compliance and reduced NHS costs, irrespective of whether patients' treatment had been stepped up or down. Switching patients to another twice-daily ICS increased compliance to a lesser extent, and increased NHS costs. We believe that this paper offers the first documented association between compliance in asthma and NHS management costs. Conclusions: Compliance and management costs among patients with asthma managed in primary care appear to be related to both changing treatment and dosing regimen. Within the limitations of our study, the results suggest that patients who are switched to a once-daily ICS rather than another twice-daily preparation are better compliers with their ICS medication. Additionally, patients who become high-* Corresponding author. C o p y r ig h t G e n e r a l P r a c t ic e A ir w a y s G r o u p R e p r o d u c t io n p r o h ib it e dCosts and compliance associated with once-daily inhaled steroids 89 compliers after being switched to a once-daily ICS incur lower management costs than patients who become high-compliers after being switched to another twice-daily ICS. These findings should now be investigated further under more controlled conditions.

This article discusses the successful implementation of anticipatory prescribing using 'just in case' boxes (JICB) in primary care across the Grampian region and a subsequent follow up survey one year later. The implementation approach used local educational sessions to primary care clinicians. The survey was distributed to 65 primary care bases to gauge awareness and use of the JICB and thoughts about how the box was used. An estimate of prescription costs was undertaken using stock balance forms. The response rate was 89%. All respondents had heard about the JICB and most had used a JICB. There were 37 positive comments about the benefits to patients, 15 comments about the process and 11 negative comments, often about possible drug wastage. The cost of a prescription was estimated at pounds 22.12. The findings have informed our ongoing educational programme and build on the strong links that exist between primary care and the specialist palliative care service.

Within the limitations of our model, starting treatment with cilostazol is expected to be a clinically more effective strategy for improving maximal walking distance at 24 weeks than starting treatment with naftidrofuryl or pentoxifylline and potentially the most cost effective strategy. Moreover, the acquisition cost of a drug should not be used as an indication of the cost effectiveness of a given method of care.

The available evidence shows that there does not seem to be any difference in efficacy between duloxetine and other oral pharmacological therapies, providing a valuable alternative for this disabling condition.