Inter-country variations in anti-asthmatic drug prescriptions for children. Systematic review of studies published during the 2000–2009 period

Drug use in French children: a population-based study

“…Such high use in paediatric patients seems to be a reflection of antibiotic prescription in the general population which is higher in France than in other European countries 28. For antiasthmatics, the prevalence observed here (14%) was similar to the overall prevalence of use in developed countries (13%),29 but higher than that reported in Northern European countries such as the Netherlands (6%) or Norway (9%). Taken together, these data suggest that even essential medicines may not always be used in a rational manner, as has previously been suggested 30…”

Anti-asthmatic prescription variability in children according to age

“…6,12,16,22,23 In relation to maintenance treatment in other countries, inhaled corticosteroids as a single agent is generally the most prescribed subgroup, as recommended in the guidelines, followed by leukotriene receptor antagonists in second or third place. Although the prescription of montelukast is high in some countries 2,9,11,23 and almost absent in others, 6,12,17,27 which may be related to the differences at the time of the study, the population age or the prescription control has specific rules in each country.…”

A methodological comparison of two European primary care databases and replication in a US claims database: inhaled long-acting beta-2-agonists and the risk of acute myocardial infarction

“…By comparing the populations included in the respective analyses, a selection bias might be more prominent regarding the results of Au et al [11]. Furthermore, intercountry differences regarding prescribing habits and the health-care system can influence PE study results [12,13]. By comparing seven health-care record databases in five European countries, Rottenkolber et al [13] found relevant intercountry differences regarding period prevalence rates of LABA-containing prescriptions and regarding the extent of potential off-label use of LABA.…”

“…For example, pharmacoepidemiological (PE) studies may differ with regard to database characteristics (e.g., claims vs. GP database), inclusion criteria (age restrictions, comorbidities, co-medications), exposure (consideration of dosages), follow-up period, outcome (identification and classification of AMI) definition, and the confounders adjusted for in multivariate models (comorbidities, comedications, disease severity) [8,[10][11][12][13]. Whereas Zhang et al [8] defined AMI cases by using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) and the national registry of hospital admissions in England, the analyses of Au et al [11] were based on patients included in a multicenter, randomized clinical trial.…”