Repository logo
  • English
  • 中文
Log In
Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. College of Medicine / 醫學院
  3. School of Pharmacy / 藥學專業學院
  4. Clinical Pharmacy / 臨床藥學研究所
  5. The impact of drug price policy on prescribing behaviors and patients right--Analysis of antidepressants
 
  • Details

The impact of drug price policy on prescribing behaviors and patients right--Analysis of antidepressants

Date Issued
2007
Date
2007
Author(s)
Li, Zong-Jhen
DOI
zh-TW
URI
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/55436
Abstract
Background:Depression is a chronic mental disorder with high social burden due to its high prevalence rate and significant disability. Currently, drug therapy is the major strategy toward the depression treatment. Among those antidepressants, the second generation antidepressants quickly became the first drug choice in clinical therapy since they have less side effect profile and have similar efficacy when compared to tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). The reimbursement price of the 20 mg/tab branded fluoxetine (Prozac®) was reduced from NTD 43.8 to NTD 18.7 by the Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI) in March 1, 2003, but not to the other second generation antidepressants. It led to the redistribution of antidepressants market in Taiwan. Can this drug price reduction in deed achieve the goal to reduce the health insurance fee? Will this policy affect the usage of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)? Objective:Part I: To collect the papers related to the efficacy of second generation antidepressants and to compare the efficacy of them. Part II: Take fluoxetine as an example to analyze the impacts of dramatic price reduction in single SSRI antidepressant upon the doctor prescribing behaviors and patients benefits. Methods:Part I: The clinical efficacy of second generation antidepressants was analyzed through a systematic review of literature searched from Medline. Part II: The Patients Medical Claim Dataset with Fluoxetine (PMCDF) in Taiwan provided by BNHI was used for data analysis. Patients prescribed with Prozac® or generic fluoxetine more than or equal to 7 days in both January and February of 2003 with no prescription of any other antidepressants at the same time were retrieved. The changes of antidepressant prescriptions were analyzed after the implementation of fluoxetine price reduction policy on March,1 2003. Drug change ratio and the continuous use ratio for patients in Prozac® group and in generic fluoxetine group were calculated. In both groups, patients under changed prescription or continuous use were further sub-grouped into 2 antidepressant utilization cohorts: (1) continuous use and (2) drug change. The total number of medical visit, medical resource consumptions of those patients were then compared between the two antidepressant utilization cohorts for Prozac® patient group and generic fluoxetine patient group. Results:Part I: After literature search, the meta analysis for major depressive disorder (MDD), including 46 head to head clinical trials as indicated in the paper by Hansen RA et al. and 5 newly found head to head trials, were carried out. The rate of being a responder at study end did not differ significantly between fluoxetine and paroxetine (relative benefit,1.09 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.21]). The efficacy of citalopram and escitalopram is similar. (relative benefit,1.06 [95% CI, 0.9 to 1.25]). A modest additional treatment effect (relative benefit, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.22]) for sertraline compared with fluoxetine; and modest additional treatment effect (relative benefit, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.23]) for venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine, were recognized. Part II: A total of 5025 patients and 8739 patients were included for Prozac® group and generic fluoxetine group, respectively. There were more woman in both two groups(56.75% and 57.57%) in both groups. The mean age of these patients in two groups was 47.0 year old and 48.8 year old. In drug change cohorts of both groups, more than 90% patients’ fluoxetine prescriptions were replaced by one other drug. The drug for replacement were mainly the SSRIs (50.86%) for Prozac® group and TCA+TeA (50.92%) for generic fluoxetine group. The prescription change patterns are different for both groups and depend on the type of medical institutions. In Prozac® group, the mean number of total medical visit in drug change cohorts was significantly higher than that in continuous use cohorts (general department, psychiatric department, emergency department, hospital admissions and psychiatric admissions). In generic fluoxetine group, there were no significant difference between the drug change cohorts and continuous use cohorts in terms of medical visits. In Prozac® group, the mean medical resource consumptions in drug change cohorts were significantly higher than those in continuous use cohorts. However, in generic fluoxetine group, the mean medical resource consumptions in drug change cohorts were significantly higher than those in continuous use cohorts with no significant difference. Conclusions:Part I: In MDD, the clinical efficacy in SSRIs is similar and the clinical efficacy between SNRIs SNRI, NaSSA, NDRI and SSRIs is similar. Part II: The policy of dramatic drug price reduction for single agent had significantly affect the prescription switched for the first three months after the policy implemented. There was a high percentage of the antidepression prescriptions switching to the other SSRIs with higher drug price profit. This is not necessarily beneficial for the use and distribution of BNHIs’ medical resources. Besides, different type of medical institution, different drug payment system and different drug inclusion principles may also influence doctors’ prescribing behaviors. For instance, the fixed-drug daily payment may lead doctors in clinics to use drugs with lower prices such as TCA with TeA. For patients and their family, they may not be informed with the change of antidepressant prescription, even worse that, such change may result in more medical visits and hence have impact on patients’ benefits.
Subjects
藥價政策
處方行為
健保資料庫
抗憂鬱劑
選擇性血清促進素再吸收抑制劑
Drug price policy
prescribing behaviors
national health insurance database
antidepressants
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor
SDGs

[SDGs]SDG3

Type
text
File(s)
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

ntu-96-R94451003-1.pdf

Size

23.31 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum

(MD5):f6362c81ac00acb35b70a38d291b99d9

臺大位居世界頂尖大學之列,為永久珍藏及向國際展現本校豐碩的研究成果及學術能量,圖書館整合機構典藏(NTUR)與學術庫(AH)不同功能平台,成為臺大學術典藏NTU scholars。期能整合研究能量、促進交流合作、保存學術產出、推廣研究成果。

To permanently archive and promote researcher profiles and scholarly works, Library integrates the services of “NTU Repository” with “Academic Hub” to form NTU Scholars.

總館學科館員 (Main Library)
醫學圖書館學科館員 (Medical Library)
社會科學院辜振甫紀念圖書館學科館員 (Social Sciences Library)

開放取用是從使用者角度提升資訊取用性的社會運動,應用在學術研究上是透過將研究著作公開供使用者自由取閱,以促進學術傳播及因應期刊訂購費用逐年攀升。同時可加速研究發展、提升研究影響力,NTU Scholars即為本校的開放取用典藏(OA Archive)平台。(點選深入了解OA)

  • 請確認所上傳的全文是原創的內容,若該文件包含部分內容的版權非匯入者所有,或由第三方贊助與合作完成,請確認該版權所有者及第三方同意提供此授權。
    Please represent that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights to upload.
  • 若欲上傳已出版的全文電子檔,可使用Open policy finder網站查詢,以確認出版單位之版權政策。
    Please use Open policy finder to find a summary of permissions that are normally given as part of each publisher's copyright transfer agreement.
  • 網站簡介 (Quickstart Guide)
  • 使用手冊 (Instruction Manual)
  • 線上預約服務 (Booking Service)
  • 方案一:臺灣大學計算機中心帳號登入
    (With C&INC Email Account)
  • 方案二:ORCID帳號登入 (With ORCID)
  • 方案一:定期更新ORCID者,以ID匯入 (Search for identifier (ORCID))
  • 方案二:自行建檔 (Default mode Submission)
  • 方案三:學科館員協助匯入 (Email worklist to subject librarians)

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science