Search

The use of psychotropic drugs in the paediatric population has not been the subject of many studies, due to the fact that this population is generally not included in clinical trials and these drugs are not authorized for use on minors. This study aims to provide an accurate description of psychotropic drug use in children and adolescents in the North of Europe and Catalonia. Data from 2008 to 2017 on psychotropic drug consumption in children and adolescents were retrieved from the databases of Catalonia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Psychotropic drugs were divided into antipsychotics, anxiolytics (also hypnotics and sedatives), antidepressants and psychostimulants. Data were stratified by group of age (0–4, 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19/15–17 for Denmark and Catalonia) and sex. Overall, the group of anxiolytics shows the highest consumption and the group of antipsychotics the lowest. In 2017, Sweden was the country with the highest consumption of psychotropic drugs (6.67‰) and has the highest increase in consumption (152.8%), and Denmark has the lowest consumption for all groups (3.13‰). Catalonia shows a decrease in psychotropic drugs (−15.9%). Girls consume more than twice as many antidepressants as boys while the opposite is true for psychostimulants. Risperidone and quetiapine are among the most consumed antipsychotics in the Nordic countries, whereas in Catalonia they are risperidone and aripiprazole. Among antidepressants, sertraline is the most consumed. No differences are found among the psychostimulants. Psychotropic consumption in younger populations is increasing, although there are differences between the countries as far as which drugs are used. Nordic countries show a higher prevalence of use than Catalonia. Psychotropic drug consumption increases with age, except for psychostimulants, which have the highest utilization rate among 10–14-year-olds.

Background and Objective Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: euro17 [0-95% Crl: 16-19] vs. euro24 [5-100% Crl: 18-29]; healthcare provider: euro37 [28-67] vs. euro44 [25-55]; healthcare payers: euro54 [45-85] vs. euro68 [45-81]; and society: euro423 [399-478] vs. euro451 [390-478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The ALIC4E trial and the contributions of AWV, EB, SC, NF, PS, NJH, PaB, AGS, DG, KK, RMP, RRJ, BS, NT, RA, CCB and PB were funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme: Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics (PREPARE) (grant HEALTH-F3-2013-602525). PB, XL, JB and RB acknowledge partial Methusalem funding from the VAXIDEA and ASCID Centres of Excellence in vaccination and infectious diseases at the University of Antwerp. JB and RB were funded by their personal postdoctoral grants from the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO). PS acknowledges that The Healthcare Committee, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, partially funded the Swedish part of the study.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels, such as coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease. CVD is the leading threat to global health, whether measured by mortality, morbidity, or economic cost. Long-term administration of aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers improves survival in patients with stablished coronary heart disease. Nevertheless, adherence to prescribed medication is poor for long-term drug treatment. Objective: We aim to assess the relationship between adherences to the four pharmacological groups recommended for secondary prevention and the clinical outcomes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with established CHD according to the level of adherence to these drugs in a population of incident cases of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Population-based cohort study of patients with a first episode of ACS during 2006-2015 in the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database. We will estimate adherence to these drugs. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, ACS, and ischaemic stroke. Bivariate analyses will be performed estimating odds ratios for categorical variables and mean differences for continuous variables. Hazard ratios for adherences will be calculated for outcome events using Cox proportional hazard regression models, and proportionality of hazards assumption will be tested. Results: We expect to estimate adherence to all four study treatments, the incidence of MACE, and to analyze if this incidence is associated with the level of drug adherence. Conclusions: We expect to find that adherent patients have a lower risk of the primary endpoints compared with nonadherent patients. Trial Registration: This study protocol was classified as EPA-OD by the AEMPS (IJG-EST-2017-01-2017-01, 07/04/2017) and registered in the EU PAS register (EUPAS19017, 09/05/2017). [JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7(3):e73]