Gauld Natalie J, Kelly Fiona S, Kurosawa Nahoko, Bryant Linda J M, Emmerton Lynne M, Buetow Stephen A
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
School of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 24;9(9):e107726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107726. eCollection 2014.
Switching or reclassifying medicines with established safety profiles from prescription to non-prescription aims to increase timely consumer access to medicines, reduce under-treatment and enhance self-management. However, risks include suboptimal therapy and adverse effects. With a long-standing government policy supporting switching or reclassifying medicines from prescription to non-prescription, the United Kingdom is believed to lead the world in switch, but evidence for this is inconclusive. Interest in switching medicines for certain long-term conditions has arisen in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe, but such switches have been contentious. The objective of this study was then to provide a comprehensive comparison of progress in switch for medicines across six developed countries: the United States; the United Kingdom; Australia; Japan; the Netherlands; and New Zealand.
A list of prescription-to-non-prescription medicine switches was systematically compiled. Three measures were used to compare switch activity across the countries: "progressive" switches from 2003 to 2013 (indicating incremental consumer benefit over current non-prescription medicines); "first-in-world" switches from 2003 to 2013; and switch date comparisons for selected medicines.
New Zealand was the most active in progressive switches from 2003 to 2013, with the United Kingdom and Japan not far behind. The United States, Australia and the Netherlands showed the least activity in this period. Few medicines for long-term conditions were switched, even in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where first-in-world switches were most likely. Switch of certain medicines took considerably longer in some countries than others. For example, a consumer in the United Kingdom could self-medicate with a non-sedating antihistamine 19 years earlier than a consumer in the United States.
Proactivity in medicines switching, most notably in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, questions missed opportunities to enhance consumers' self-management in countries such as the United States.
将具有既定安全概况的药物从处方药转换为非处方药或重新分类,旨在增加消费者及时获取药物的机会,减少治疗不足并加强自我管理。然而,风险包括治疗效果欠佳和不良反应。由于长期存在支持药物从处方药转换为非处方药或重新分类的政府政策,英国被认为在药物转换方面处于世界领先地位,但这方面的证据尚无定论。英国、美国和欧洲已出现对某些长期病症药物进行转换的兴趣,但此类转换一直存在争议。本研究的目的是对六个发达国家(美国、英国、澳大利亚、日本、荷兰和新西兰)在药物转换方面的进展进行全面比较。
系统编制了一份从处方药转换为非处方药的药物清单。采用三项指标比较各国的药物转换活动:2003年至2013年的“渐进式”转换(表明相对于当前非处方药,消费者受益增加);2003年至2013年的“世界首创”转换;以及选定药物的转换日期比较。
2003年至2013年,新西兰在渐进式转换方面最为活跃,英国和日本紧随其后。美国、澳大利亚和荷兰在此期间的活动最少。即使在最有可能出现世界首创转换的英国和新西兰,用于长期病症的药物转换也很少。某些药物在一些国家的转换时间比其他国家长得多。例如,英国消费者使用非镇静性抗组胺药进行自我药疗的时间比美国消费者早19年。
在药物转换方面的积极性,尤其是在新西兰和英国,让人质疑美国等国家错失了加强消费者自我管理的机会。