The training equipped outpatient physicians with the knowledge and skills for appropriate use of electronic prescribing systems, but had no effect on medication discrepancies.

Aim: The combined use of stents and abciximab in percutaneous coronary intervention has been evaluated in the EPISTENT trial. However, the clinical and economic findings in trials are not necessarily generalisable to a general population setting. We conducted a study in daily clinical practice comparing stented and non-stented patients undergoing coronary angioplasty with abciximab administration. Furthermore, we compare our results with the findings of the EPISTENT trial. Methods: From 1995 to 1999, refractory unstable patients scheduled for angioplasty and receiving abciximab in a Dutch regional hospital were followed prospectively for 6 months. Total costs were considered in addition to 2 composite clinical endpoints: (1) death or myocardial infarction (MI); and (2) death, MI, or any revascularisation procedure (major adverse cardiac events, MACE). Results: Stented patients (N5101) experienced less MACE than non-stented patients (N583) (6.9% vs. 16.9%, OR50.37, P50.04). The total costs were similar for stented and non-stented patients (EUR 7 844 vs. EUR 7 904, P50.93). Adjustment for baseline characteristics yielded similar results, although significance subsided. The relative risk reduction of 44% that we found, closely resembles the 42% that was found in the EPISTENT trial. Conclusions: In everyday practice, as in the EPISTENT trial, the addition of a stent to abciximab treatment does seem to reduce the risk of MACE by about 40% at no additional costs.

Summary. In comparison with other biotechnology substitutions, the adoption of recombinant Factor VIII (rFVIII) has been relatively slow. We sent a postal questionnaire to all Dutch haemophilia patients and haemophilia-treating physicians, to determine which factors predict whether a patient uses plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) or rFVIII and to investigate patientsÕ and doctors' opinions on both products. Fifty-six per cent of patients received rFVIII. This percentage varied widely between centres. Only one doctor would choose to use pdFVIII if he suffered from haemophilia A himself, and 74% would choose to use rFVIII. Younger patients, those not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C, and those who did not have family members who used pdFVIII switched more often from pdFVIII to rFVIII. Patients who rated themselves as innovative, who had family members who used rFVIII, and those who were treated in a large haemophilia treatment centre were also more likely to have switched. For physicians and patients alike, the respondents generally did not see large differences between rFVIII and pdFVIII, except for the risk of infections and the knowledge of long-term effects (both larger for pdFVIII). Although haemophilia patients represent one of the most empowered patient groups, physicians appear to have been influential in choosing between pdFVIII and rFVIII.