10-year trends in English primary care glaucoma prescribing.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
27
06
2019
accepted:
02
10
2019
revised:
25
09
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
6
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In 2018 NHS prescriptions in England cost £8.83 billion. Within ophthalmic prescribing, glaucoma is the most costly indication. The 2017 glaucoma NICE guideline shows there is little evidence for clinical preference of particular molecules within a therapeutic class, yet the cost of these products varies greatly. We aim to describe trends in glaucoma prescribing and its relation to recent NICE Guidance. Prescription cost analyses for England from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed and data concerning items for the treatment of glaucoma were extracted. Costs and prescription frequencies were normalised for inflation and population. The 2018 cost of glaucoma prescribing was £114.2 million. This cost is 18.1% lower than in 2009 but the annual number of items prescribed per 10,000 people has increased from 1382 to 1668 (20.7%). This is despite an increased prescription of combination drops from 265 to 478 per 10,000 (80.4%). Preservative free item prescriptions rose from 1.7% of total spend in 2009, at £3.4 million in 2009, to 13.9%, in 2018, at £22.5 million. Generic items represented 11.7% of prescriptions in 2009 and 55.2% in 2018. Around half of glaucoma spending is accounted for by the use of preservative free or branded items in the place of the cheapest item in each therapeutic class. Glaucoma prescribing costs the NHS a great deal. There is a broad trend to generic prescribing as per recent NICE guidance, but significant further costs could be saved with no robustly evidenced clinical consequence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In 2018 NHS prescriptions in England cost £8.83 billion. Within ophthalmic prescribing, glaucoma is the most costly indication. The 2017 glaucoma NICE guideline shows there is little evidence for clinical preference of particular molecules within a therapeutic class, yet the cost of these products varies greatly. We aim to describe trends in glaucoma prescribing and its relation to recent NICE Guidance.
METHODS
Prescription cost analyses for England from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed and data concerning items for the treatment of glaucoma were extracted. Costs and prescription frequencies were normalised for inflation and population.
RESULTS
The 2018 cost of glaucoma prescribing was £114.2 million. This cost is 18.1% lower than in 2009 but the annual number of items prescribed per 10,000 people has increased from 1382 to 1668 (20.7%). This is despite an increased prescription of combination drops from 265 to 478 per 10,000 (80.4%). Preservative free item prescriptions rose from 1.7% of total spend in 2009, at £3.4 million in 2009, to 13.9%, in 2018, at £22.5 million. Generic items represented 11.7% of prescriptions in 2009 and 55.2% in 2018. Around half of glaucoma spending is accounted for by the use of preservative free or branded items in the place of the cheapest item in each therapeutic class.
CONCLUSIONS
Glaucoma prescribing costs the NHS a great deal. There is a broad trend to generic prescribing as per recent NICE guidance, but significant further costs could be saved with no robustly evidenced clinical consequence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31685974
doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0656-z
pii: 10.1038/s41433-019-0656-z
pmc: PMC7002417
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
192-196Références
Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–90.
pubmed: 24974815
pmcid: 24974815
Royal National Institute for the Blind., Eye health and sight loss stats and facts, 2018. www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/knowledge-and-research-hub/key-informationand-statistics .
Connor AJ, Fraser SG. Glaucoma prescribing trends in England 2000 to 2012. Eye. 2014;28:863–9.
doi: 10.1038/eye.2014.114
The King’s Fund, Briefing; Deficits in the NHS, 2006. www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/briefing-deficits-in-nhs-kings-fund-jun06.pdf .
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Glaucoma: diagnosis and management, 2017.
NHS Digital, Prescription Costs Analysis, In: Department of Health (ed), 2018. digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/prescription-cost-analysis .
British National Formulary, London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press, 2018.
Office for National Statistics., Population estimates, 2018. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/enpop/pop
Office for National Statistics., CPI Index 00: All items 2015 = 100, 2018.
The Colleges of Optometrstis and Ophthalmologists, Guidance on the referral of Glaucoma suspects by community optometrists, 2010.
Edgar DF, Romanay T, Lawrenson JG, Myint J. Referral behaviour among optometrists: increase in the Number of Referrals from optometrists Following the Publication of the April 2009 NICE Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of COAG and OHT in England and Wales and its Implications. Optom Pract. 2010;11:33–38.
Kapetanakis VV, Chan MPY, Foster PJ, Cook DG, Owen CG, Rudnicka AR. Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:86–93.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307223
Heng JS, Wormald R, Khaw PT. Geographical variation in glaucoma prescribing trends in Wngland 2008-2012: an observational ecological study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010429.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010429
Cheng JW, Wei RL. Meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials comparing bimatoprost with latanoprost in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Clin Therapeutics. 2008;30:622–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.04.006
Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, de Jong PTVM. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:141–4.
doi: 10.1007/BF00176782
Van Der Valk R, Webers CAB, Schouten JSAG, Zeegers MP, Hendrikse F, Prins MH. Intraocular pressure-lowering effects of all commonly used glaucoma drugs: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1177–85.
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.01.042
Aihara M, Shirato S, Sakata R. Incidence of deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus after switching from latanoprost to bimatoprost. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011;55:600–4.
doi: 10.1007/s10384-011-0075-6
European Glaucoma Society, Chapter 3.3 Antiglaucoma Drugs, Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma: PubliComm, 2014.
Shedden A, Adamsons IA, Getson AJ, Laurence JK, Lines CR, Hewitt DJ, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free and preservative-containing formulations of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT™) in patients with elevated intraocular pressure in a randomized clinical trial. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:1757–64.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-010-1397-7
Day DG, Walters TR, Schwartz GF, Mundorf TK, Liu C, Schiffman RM, et al. Bimatoprost 0.03% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution (Lumigan) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: A 12-week, randomised, double-masked trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:989–93.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-303040
Goldberg I, Gil Pina R, Lanzagorta-Aresti A, Schiffman RM, Liu C, Bejanian M. Bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% preservative-free ophthalmic solution versus bimatoprost 0.03%/timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Ganfort) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension: A 12-week randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:926–31.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304064
Steven DW, Alaghband P, Lim KS. Preservatives in glaucoma medication. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:1497–503.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311544