The management of dyslipidemia in a private health care setting : a managed pharmaceutical care approach / Susan Mothekoa Bopape
Bopape, Susan Mothekoa
MetadataShow full item record
The global anti-dyslipidemic market grew by 19% from 2000 to 2001, achieving sales of over $21 billion (Smith, 2004: 2). This market is currently well sewed by a number of effective and well-tolerated treatments. Lipid-lowering drugs are considered as the first choice drugs in control of dyslipidemias and they are well tolerated by most patients. As with many drug therapies, there should be a balance between the benefits of cholesterol lowering agents, increased medication cost and the overall risk of adverse drug reactions. According to Ballesteros (2001: 514), hypolipidemic drugs are consumed on a large scale and most consumers are elderly. This warrants a study of expenditure incurred because of inadequate prescribing of these agents. The general objective of this study was to determine the utilisation and cost of hypolipidemic drugs in the private health care environment in South Africa. A quantitative retrospective drug utilisation review was performed using a medicine claims database. Data for twenty-four consecutive months (May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003) were used to determine and compare the utilisation patterns and cost of drugs associated with the management of dyslipidemia a year before (1st May 2001 to 30 April 2002) and a year after (1st May 2002 to 30 April 2003) the implementation of a medicine reference price system (MPL). Data analysis was done by calculating the average value, the standard deviation, effect size, and cost-prevalence indices. The results of this study revealed that hypolipidemic drugs constituted 2.70% (n = 21820911) and 2.78% (n =27277825) of the total number of all medicine items for the first and the second study years respectively. On the other hand, the total cost of all hypolipidemic drugs accounted for 6.33% (n= R3 097 604 602) and 6.23 % (n= R 4 053 280 295) of the total cost of all medicine items claimed during the first and the second study years respectively. The prevalence of generic hypolipidemic drugs accounted for 0.89% (n=589036) and 4.88% (n=759675) of the total number of hypolipidemic drugs claimed during the first and second study year respectively. Innovator drugs, on the other hand, constituted 99.1 1% (n=589036) and 95.11% (n=759675) of the total number of hypolipidemic drugs claimed during the first and second study years respectively. It was found that R23 694.5 and R603 277.36 could have been saved for generic bezafibrate and generic simvastatin respectively if they had been sold at ME'L prices. The total cost of generic hypolipidemic drugs accounted for 0.60% and 2.94%. The total cost of innovator hypolipidemic drugs accounted for 99.40% and 97.06% of the total cost of hypolipidemic drugs claimed during the first (n=R 196 076 050) and second (n=R 252 919 285) study year respectively. With respect to the prescribed daily dose, it was found that most prescriptions for individual hypolipidemic drugs did not conform to the defined daily dose. It was, however, found that most prescriptions whose prescribed daily dose was for one tablet once daily and whose strength was similar to the defined daily dose conformed to the defined daily dose. The conclusion is that there was an insignificant difference in both the prevalence and cost of hypolipidemic drugs a year before and after the implementation of MPL. It was further concluded that increased utilisation of generic hypolipidemic medicine items a year after the implementation of the MPL, could have been brought about by the introduction of generic simvastatin into the market as opposed to the implementation of the MPL. Recommendations for further studies will be formulated.
- ETD@PUK