BackgroundNumerous national guidelines have been issued to assist general practitioners’ safe analgesic prescribing. Their effectiveness is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine trends in general practitioners’ prescribing behaviour in relation to national guidelines.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational database study of registered adult patients prescribed an analgesic (2002–2009) from the Consultations in Primary Care Archive – 12 North Staffordshire general practices. Prescribing guidance from the UK Medicines Regulatory Health Authority (MHRA) regarding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and co-proxamol, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) management guidelines were considered. Analgesic prescribing rates were examined, arranged according to a classification of six equipotent medication groups: (1) basic analgesics; (2)–(5) increasingly potent opioids and (6) NSAIDs. In each quarter from 2002 to 2009, the number of patients per 10,000 registered population receiving a prescription for the first time from each group was determined. Quarters associated with significant changes in the underlying prescribing trend were determined using joinpoint regression.ResultsA significant decrease in incident co-proxamol and Cox-2 prescribing occurred around the time of the first MHRA advice to stop using them and were rarely prescribed thereafter. The new prescribing of weak analgesics (e.g., co-codamol 8/500) increased at this same time. Initiating topical NSAIDs significantly increased around the time of the NICE OA guidelines.ConclusionsSignificant prescribing changes occurred when national advice and guidelines were issued. The effectiveness of this advice may vary depending upon the content and method of dissemination. Further evaluation of the optimal methods for delivering prescribing guidance is required.

No abstract

Innovations reported by early awareness and alert systems do not always reflect conditions accounting for the highest morbidity and mortality. The results do not support previous reports of a positive relationship between burden of disease and innovation, but accord with evidence of notable discrepancies among key groups. Factors other than disease burden drive innovation.

ObjectivesInnovative new drugs offer potential benefits to patients, healthcare systems, governments and the pharmaceutical industry. Recent data suggest annual numbers of new drugs launched in the UK have increased in recent years, and we sought to understand whether this represents increasing numbers of highly innovative drugs being made available or the introduction of increasing numbers of drugs with limited additional therapeutic value.Design and settingRetrospective observational study of new drug entries in the British National Formulary (BNF).Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumber of new drugs launched in the UK each year (based on first appearance in the BNF) from 2001 to 2012, including new chemical entities and new biological drugs, categorised by degree of innovativeness according to published criteria that incorporate both clinical usefulness and the nature of the innovation.ResultsHighly innovative, moderately innovative and slightly innovative drugs made up 26%, 18% and 56% of all newly launched drugs, respectively, for the study period (n=290). There was an upward trend in annual numbers of slightly innovative drugs from 2004 onwards (R2=0.44), which aligned closely with the recovery in total numbers of new drugs launched each year since that time. There were no discernible time trends in the highly or moderately innovative categories. New drugs for malignancy and skin disease were most likely to be characterised as highly innovative (44% and 57%, respectively).ConclusionsHighly innovative new drugs comprise only around a quarter of all new drug launches in the UK. In contrast, drugs categorised as only slightly innovative comprised well over half of all new drugs and annual numbers in this category are increasing. Current policy initiatives that seek to increase the supply of innovative new drugs have long-lead times to impact, and will need careful assessment to ensure they deliver their aims without unintended consequences.

ObjectiveTo describe trends in new drugs launched in the UK from 1982 to 2011 and test the hypothesis that the rate of new drug introductions has declined over the study period. There is wide concern that pharmaceutical innovation is declining. Reported trends suggest that fewer new drugs have been launched over recent decades, despite increasing investment into research and development.DesignRetrospective observational study.Setting and data sourceDatabase of new preparations added annually to the British National Formulary (BNF).Main outcome measuresThe number of new drugs entered each year, including new chemical entities(NCEs) and new biological drugs, based on first appearance in the BNF.ResultsThere was no significant linear trend in the number of new drugs introduced into the UK from 1982 to 2011. Following a dip in the mid-1980s (11–12 NCEs/new biologics introduced annually from 1985 to 1987), there was a variable increase in the numbers of new drugs introduced annually to a peak of 34 in 1997. This peak was followed by a decline to approximately 20 new drugs/year between 2003 and 2006, and another peak in 2010. Extending the timeline further back with existing published data shows an overall slight increase in new drug introductions of 0.16/year over the entire 1971 to 2011 period.ConclusionsThe purported ‘innovation dip’ is an artefact of the time periods previously studied. Reports of declining innovation need to be considered in the context of their timescale and perspective.