TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies
T2 - A comparison of two national health services in Europe
AU - Mattsson, Molly
AU - Boland, Fiona
AU - Kirke, Ciara
AU - Flood, Michelle
AU - Wallace, Emma
AU - Walsh, Mary E.
AU - Corrigan, Derek
AU - Fahey, Tom
AU - Croker, Richard
AU - Bacon, Sebastian C.J.
AU - Inglesby, Peter
AU - Evans, David
AU - Goldacre, Ben
AU - MacKenna, Brian
AU - Moriarty, Frank
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Aims: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015–2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. Results: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. Conclusions: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.
AB - Aims: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015–2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. Results: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. Conclusions: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.
KW - clinical pharmacology
KW - drug regulation
KW - health policy
KW - prescribing
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85161414626
U2 - 10.1111/bcp.15779
DO - 10.1111/bcp.15779
M3 - Article
C2 - 37164354
AN - SCOPUS:85161414626
SN - 0306-5251
VL - 89
SP - 2349
EP - 2358
JO - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
JF - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
IS - 8
ER -