BackgroundHip fractures in the older person lead to an increased risk of mortality, poorer quality of life and increased morbidity. Benzodiazepine (BNZ) use is associated with increased hip fracture rate, consequently Z-drugs are fast becoming the physician’s hypnotic prescription of choice yet data on their use is limited. We compared the risk of hip fracture associated with Z-drugs and BNZ medications, respectively, and examined if this risk varied with longer-term use.Methods and findingsWe carried out a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies involving BNZ or Z-drugs and the risk of hip fracture up to May 2015. Each included study was quality-assessed. A pooled relative risk of hip fracture was calculated using the generic inverse variance method, with a random effects model, with the length of hypnotic usage as a subgroup. Both BNZ, and Z-drug use respectively, were significantly associated with an increased risk of hip fracture (RR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.37–1.68; and RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.68–2.13). Short-term use of BNZ and Z-drugs respectively, was also associated with the greatest risk of hip fracture (RR = 2.40, 95% CI 1.88–3.05 and RR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.74–3.29).ConclusionsThere is strong evidence that both BNZ and Z-drugs are associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in the older person, and there is little difference between their respective risks. Patients newly prescribed these medicines are at the greatest risk of hip fracture. Clinicians and policy makers need to consider the increased risk of fallings and hip fracture particularly amongst new users of these medications.

AimsThe effect of a distance-learning package linked to educational credits on the rate and quality of spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) repor ting by general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists in Wales was investigated. MethodsIn April 2000, 477 GPs and 261 pharmacists enrolled in the 12 month programme. ResultsThe number and quality of yellow card reports improved compared with those of a control region in England (Northern Region). ConclusionsWe conclude that an educational initiative in drug safety linked to incentives may be associated with a significant but perhaps short-lived improvement in the rate and quality of ADR reporting.

BackgroundThe All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) develops prescribing advice and is responsible for appraising new medicines for use in Wales. In this article, we examine the medicines appraisal process in Wales, its timeliness and its impact on medicines availability in Wales, and compare its processes and recommendations with the two other UK health technology appraisal bodies [the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)].MethodsWe reviewed the medicines appraisals conducted by AWMSG between October 2010 and September 2015. The duration of the process and the recommendations made by AWMSG were compared with those of NICE and SMC. Only publicly available data were considered in this review.ResultsAWMSG conducted 171 single technology appraisals for 137 medicines during the study period (34 were for medicines previously appraised by AWMSG but these were for new indications). Of these, 152 appraisals were supported for use in NHS Wales (33 with restrictions) and 19 were not supported. Recommendations broadly concurred with SMC and NICE for the majority of appraisals. Compared with NICE recommendations, the median time advantage gained in Wales for those medicines that received a positive AWMSG recommendation and which were subsequently superseded by NICE advice was 10.6 months (range 3.5–48.3 months; n = 17).ConclusionThis review highlights the work carried out by AWMSG over a 5-year period, and provides evidence to support the effectiveness of the appraisal process in terms of patients in Wales gaining earlier access to medicines and efficiency through reduced duplication with NICE.

No abstract