ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2005
Impact of regulatory changes on first- and second-generation antipsychotic drug consumption and expenditure in Italy.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Use of prescription drugs in Spain and Europe].Atencion primaria · 2012Review
- Potential to enhance the prescribing of generic drugs in patients with mental health problems in austria; implications for the future.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2012Article
- A three-country comparison of psychotropic medication prevalence in youth.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2008Article
- Increased use of second generation antipsychotic drugs in primary care: potential relevance for hospitalizations in schizophrenia patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2008Article
- Drug treatment modalities in psychiatric inpatient practice: a 20-year comparison.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 1994 a change in drug reimbursement status was implemented in Italy according to cost-effectiveness criteria. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of these changes on the use of antipsychotic (AP) drugs.
methodsData concerning actual quantities of antipsychotic agents dispensed in Italy from 1995 to June 2003 were obtained from the Italian Ministry of Health. For each antipsychotic agent, the number of defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day was calculated, as well as the annual expenditure in Euros.
resultsFrom 1995 to June 2003 prescriptions for first-generation antipsychotic agents (FGAs) progressively decreased from 2.54 to 2.0 DDD/1,000/day; in contrast, prescriptions for second-generation antipsychotic agents (SGAs) progressively rose up to 1.75 DDD/1,000/day in 2003. Overall, from 1995 to 2003 antipsychotic prescriptions rose from 2.54 to 3.75 DDD/1,000/day. In 2003 the antipsychotic drug most frequently used was haloperidol, followed by olanzapine and risperidone. In 2003 the use of SGAs accounted for nearly 50% of overall DDD/1,000/day of AP agents. The cost of these new drugs, however, accounted for more than 80% of the total AP expenditure.
conclusionsIn Italy, the progressive increase in the utilisation of SGAs has been accompanied by a moderate decrease in the utilisation of phenothiazines and by an almost constant use of butyrophenones. The policy of reimbursing the use of SGAs only in subjects who could not tolerate FGAs eventually failed to significantly affect the pattern of antipsychotic consumption and expenditure; moreover, when this policy was eliminated at the beginning of 2001, the pattern of consumption and expenditure did not change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15624078What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.