Julie J Wilkinson1, Rex W Force, Paul S Cady. 1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, South University School of Pharmacy, Savannah, Georgia 31406, USA. jjwilkinson@southuniversity.edu
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of safety alerts on the volume of cisapride and troglitazone usage. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. SETTING: University research center. MATERIAL: Idaho Medicaid claims data from January 1994--July 2000. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Monthly counts of total and new prescriptions filled for cisapride and troglitazone were analyzed graphically over time as a function of all prescriptions. New prescriptions were defined as those filled by patients who had not received the drug within the previous year. A binomial comparison of the 5 months before and after each safety alert was conducted by Poisson distribution. Overall and new cisapride usage increased after the first alert, which occurred in February 1995 (p<0.05). After the second alert, in September 1995, growth in new prescriptions ended but total prescriptions continued to grow (p<0.05). After the third alert, in June 1998, growth in total use ended and the number of new prescriptions declined (p<0.05). The final two alerts (June 1999 and January 2000) were met with significant declines (p<0.05 for both). Troglitazone was the subject of two alerts in October and December 1997. After these, overall usage increased (p<0.05), whereas the number o new prescriptions decreased (p<0.05). The third alert, in July 1998, caused no change as total prescription use continued to grow (p<0.05), whereas the number of new prescriptions decreased (p<0.05). A fourth alert, in June 1999, resulted in a decrease of overall usage and new prescriptions (p<0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: Numerous safety alerts were required for each drug before drug usage declined. The decline in overall use was slower than the decline in new prescriptions, possibly indicating a need for increased assessment of refilled prescriptions after the release of new safety data.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of safety alerts on the volume of cisapride and troglitazone usage. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. SETTING: University research center. MATERIAL: Idaho Medicaid claims data from January 1994--July 2000. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Monthly counts of total and new prescriptions filled for cisapride and troglitazone were analyzed graphically over time as a function of all prescriptions. New prescriptions were defined as those filled by patients who had not received the drug within the previous year. A binomial comparison of the 5 months before and after each safety alert was conducted by Poisson distribution. Overall and new cisapride usage increased after the first alert, which occurred in February 1995 (p<0.05). After the second alert, in September 1995, growth in new prescriptions ended but total prescriptions continued to grow (p<0.05). After the third alert, in June 1998, growth in total use ended and the number of new prescriptions declined (p<0.05). The final two alerts (June 1999 and January 2000) were met with significant declines (p<0.05 for both). Troglitazone was the subject of two alerts in October and December 1997. After these, overall usage increased (p<0.05), whereas the number o new prescriptions decreased (p<0.05). The third alert, in July 1998, caused no change as total prescription use continued to grow (p<0.05), whereas the number of new prescriptions decreased (p<0.05). A fourth alert, in June 1999, resulted in a decrease of overall usage and new prescriptions (p<0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: Numerous safety alerts were required for each drug before drug usage declined. The decline in overall use was slower than the decline in new prescriptions, possibly indicating a need for increased assessment of refilled prescriptions after the release of new safety data.
Authors: Sigrid Piening; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jonie T N de Vries; Menno E van der Elst; Pieter A de Graeff; Sabine M J M Straus; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Peter G M Mol; Sabine M J M Straus; Sigrid Piening; Jonie T N de Vries; Pieter A de Graeff; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Pedro Cervera-Casino; Salvador Peiró; Beatriz González López-Valcarcel; Amparo Blázquez; Teresa Barbera Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2009 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Adrianne Faber; Marcel L Bouvy; Linda Loskamp; Paul B van de Berg; Toine C G Egberts; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Stacie B Dusetzina; Ashley S Higashi; E Ray Dorsey; Rena Conti; Haiden A Huskamp; Shu Zhu; Craig F Garfield; G Caleb Alexander Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.983