Impact of the introduction of falls risk assessment toolkit on falls prevention and psychotropic medicines' utilisation in Walsall: an interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the introduction of a falls risk assessment toolkit (FRAT) in a UK medical centre on the number and cost of non-elective admissions for falls and psychotropic medication utilisation. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis quantifying the number and cost of non-elective admissions for falls and primary care use data for Rushall Medical Centre before and after the implementation of FRAT at July 2017. SETTING: Data on the monthly number and cost of non-elective admissions for falls and number of referrals and assessment to the falls service were provided by Walsall Clinical Commissioning Group. Primary care prescribing cost and volume data for Rushall Medical Centre was derived from the Openprescribing.net website for prescriptions dispensed between April 2015 and November 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and cost of non-elective admissions for falls and number of referrals and assessment to the falls service, and the volume of utilisation of psychotropic medicines. RESULTS: Following the implementation of FRAT at Rushall Medical Centre in July 2017, the number of non-elective admissions for falls decreased at a rate of 0.414 admissions per month (p<0.033, 95% CI -0.796 to -0.032). The utilisation of psychotropic medications (alimemazine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, olanzapine and risperidone) decreased. The expenditure on psychotropic medications prescribed/used at Rushall Medical Centre decreased by at least £986 per month (p<0.001, 95% CI -2067 to -986). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of FRAT at Rushall Medical Centre was associated with a reduction in the number of non-elective admissions for falls. Assessment of these patients together with deprescribing of psychotropic medications resulted in a reduction in the number of non-elective admissions for falls and associated costs.

Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Originator pharmaceutical companies prolonging the patent of a medicine prevents rivals' entry to the market and competition. As the entry of generic alternatives usually results in price reduction, any delay in their entry potentially deprives the National Health Service (NHS) of much-needed savings. This study estimates the potential cost savings lost to the NHS as a result of delayed entry of generic low-dose buprenorphine (LDTB) patches in England. DESIGN: Two case scenarios were modelled to determine the savings from the entry of generic LDTB Butec only between February and August 2016 and the potential savings which could have been achieved if all generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time. SETTING: The volume of utilisation of branded and generic LDTB in UK primary care was derived from the NHS business services authority website for prescriptions dispensed between February 2015 and January 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost savings associated with the entry of generic LDTB. RESULTS: The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of Butec alone was £0.7 ($0.92) million. The model predicted that if all generic buprenorphine entered the market at the same time with Butec, they could have been achieved a £1.2 ($1.57) million saving. This means that approximately £0.5 ($0.65) million savings was lost to the NHS over the 6-month time period. CONCLUSIONS: The entry of Butec was associated with cost savings. We estimated that more cost savings could have been achieved if other generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time to drive competition between rivals. Patent protection strategies which delayed the entry of multiple generics were responsible for the reduced cost savings to the NHS in England.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions and perspectives on biosimilar medicines and the barriers and facilitators to their prescribing in UK: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate UK healthcare professionals' perceptions and perspectives towards biosimilar infliximab, etanercept and insulin glargine and the potential barriers and facilitators to their prescribing. DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative study design was used. SETTING: Five hospitals within the West Midlands area in UK. INTERVENTIONS: 30 min face-to-face, semistructured interviews of healthcare professionals. PARTICIPANTS: 22 healthcare professionals (consultants, nurses and pharmacists) participated in the semistructured interviews. OUTCOMES: Participants' opinion and attitudes about biosimilars and the barriers and facilitators to the prescribing of infliximab, etanercept and insulin glargine biosimilars in gastroenterology, rheumatology and diabetology specialties. RESULTS: This study showed that UK healthcare professionals had good knowledge of biosimilars and were content to initiate them. Healthcare professionals disagreed with biosimilar auto-substitution at pharmacy level and multiple switching. Subtle differences among healthcare professionals were identified in the acceptance of switching stable patients, indication extrapolation and cost savings sharing. CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy concerns, patients' opinion and how cost savings were shared were the identified barriers to considering prescribing biosimilars. Real-life data and financial incentives were the suggested facilitators to increase biosimilar utilisation.