The objective of this study was to assess international trends in antipsychotic use, using a standardised methodology. A repeated cross-sectional design was applied to data extracts from the years 2005 to 2014 from 16 countries worldwide. During the study period, the overall prevalence of antipsychotic use increased in 10 of the 16 studied countries. In 2014, the overall prevalence of antipsychotic use was highest in Taiwan (78.2/1000 persons), and lowest in Colombia (3.2/1000). In children and adolescents (0-19 years), antipsychotic use ranged from 0.5/1000 (Lithuania) to 30.8/1000 (Taiwan). In adults (20-64 years), the range was 2.8/1000 (Colombia) to 78.9/1000 (publicly insured US population), and in older adults (65+ years), antipsychotic use ranged from 19.0/1000 (Colombia) to 149.0/1000 (Taiwan). Atypical antipsychotic use increased in all populations (range of atypical/typical ratio: 0.7 (Taiwan) to 6.1 (New Zealand, Australia)). Quetiapine, risperidone, and olanzapine were most frequently prescribed. Prevalence and patterns of antipsychotic use varied markedly between countries. In the majority of populations, antipsychotic utilisation and especially the use of atypical antipsychotics increased over time. The high rates of antipsychotic prescriptions in older adults and in youths in some countries merit further investigation and systematic pharmacoepidemiologic monitoring.
While clozapine use has increased in most studied countries over recent years, clozapine is still underutilised in many countries, with clozapine utilisation patterns differing significantly between countries. Future research should address the implementation of interventions designed to facilitate increased clozapine utilisation.
Purpose The COVID‐19 pandemic had an impact on health care, with disruption to routine clinical care. Our aim was to describe changes in prescription drugs dispensing in the primary and outpatient sectors during the first year of the pandemic across Europe. Methods We used routine administrative data on dispensed medicines in eight European countries (five whole countries, three represented by one region each) from January 2017 to March 2021 to compare the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic with the preceding 3 years. Results In the 10 therapeutic subgroups with the highest dispensed volumes across all countries/regions the relative changes between the COVID‐19 period and the year before were mostly of a magnitude similar to changes between previous periods. However, for drugs for obstructive airway diseases the changes in the COVID‐19 period were stronger in several countries/regions. In all countries/regions a decrease in dispensed DDDs of antibiotics for systemic use (from −39.4% in Romagna to −14.2% in Scotland) and nasal preparations (from −34.4% in Lithuania to −5.7% in Sweden) was observed. We observed a stockpiling effect in the total market in March 2020 in six countries/regions. In Czechia the observed increase was not significant and in Slovenia volumes increased only after the end of the first lockdown. We found an increase in average therapeutic quantity per pack dispensed, which, however, exceeded 5% only in Slovenia, Germany, and Czechia. Conclusions The findings from this first European cross‐national comparison show a substantial decrease in dispensed volumes of antibiotics for systemic use in all countries/regions. The results also indicate that the provision of medicines for common chronic conditions was mostly resilient to challenges faced during the pandemic. However, there were notable differences between the countries/regions for some therapeutic areas.
Low level of knowledge and poor attitude and opinion in rational use of medicines have been shown in this study. It is necessary involve citizens and improve their basic knowledge to promote rational use of medicines.
Indicators were chosen from among those proposed by an advisory group, depending on feasibility of obtaining information. A total of 17 indicators in 4 dimensions were studied: accessibility, clinical effectiveness, case management capacity, and cost-efficiency. Each PCT was scored for each indicator based on the percentile group in the distribution of scores, and for each dimension based on the mean score for all indicators in a given dimension. Overall score for PCT performance was calculated as the weighted sum of the scores for each dimension. As descriptive variables we analyzed time operating under the revised administrative system, patient visits per population served, the population's economic capacity and age of the population. RESULTS. Nine PCT were identified as the benchmark group. Teams in this group had been operating under the revised administrative system for significantly longer than other PCT. In comparison to other PCT, the benchmark group obtained higher scores on all four dimensions, better results on 14 separate indicators, the same results for 1 indicator, and worse results for 2 indicators. CONCLUSIONS. Benchmarking made it possible to identify PCT with the best performance, and to identify areas in need of improvement. This approach is a potentially useful tool for self-evaluation and for stimulating a dynamic for improvement in primary care providers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.