Can differences in medical drug compliance between European countries be explained by social factors: analyses based on data from the European Social Survey, round 2

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-compliance with medication is a major health problem. Cultural differences may explain different compliance patterns. The size of the compliance burden and the impact of socio-demographic and socio-economic status within and across countries in Europe have, however, never been analysed in one survey. The aim of this study was to analyse 1) medical drug compliance in different European countries with respect to socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, and to examine 2) whether cross-national differences could be explained by these factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multi-country interview survey <it>European Social Survey, Round 2 </it>was conducted in 2004/05 comprising questions about compliance with last prescribed drug. Non-compliance was classified as primary and secondary, depending whether the drug was purchased or not. Statistical weighting allowed for adjustment for national differences in sample mechanisms. A multiple imputation strategy was used to compensate for missing values. The analytical approach included multivariate and multilevel analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey comprised 45,678 participants. Response rate was 62.5% (range 43.6–79.1%). Reported compliance was generally high (82%) but the pattern of non-compliance showed large variation between countries. Some 3.2% did not purchase the most recently prescribed medicine, and 13.6% did not take the medicine as prescribed. Multiple regression analyses showed that each variable had very different and in some cases opposite impact on compliance within countries. The multilevel analysis showed that the variation between countries did not change significantly when adjusted for increasing numbers of covariates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Reported compliance was generally high but showed wide variation between countries. Cross-national differences could, however, not be explained by the socio-demographic and socio-economic variables measured.</p

A three-country comparison of psychotropic medication prevalence in youth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The study aims to compare cross-national prevalence of psychotropic medication use in youth.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based analysis of psychotropic medication use based on administrative claims data for the year 2000 was undertaken for insured enrollees from 3 countries in relation to age group (0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–19), gender, drug subclass pattern and concomitant use. The data include insured youth aged 0–19 in the year 2000 from the Netherlands (n = 110,944), Germany (n = 356,520) and the United States (n = 127,157).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual prevalence of any psychotropic medication in youth was significantly greater in the US (6.7%) than in the Netherlands (2.9%) and in Germany (2.0%). Antidepressant and stimulant prevalence were 3 or more times greater in the US than in the Netherlands and Germany, while antipsychotic prevalence was 1.5–2.2 times greater. The atypical antipsychotic subclass represented only 5% of antipsychotic use in Germany, but 48% in the Netherlands and 66% in the US. The less commonly used drugs e.g. alpha agonists, lithium and antiparkinsonian agents generally followed the ranking of US>Dutch>German youth with very rare (less than 0.05%) use in Dutch and German youth. Though rarely used, anxiolytics were twice as common in Dutch as in US and German youth. Prescription hypnotics were half as common as anxiolytics in Dutch and US youth and were very uncommon in German youth. Concomitant drug use applied to 19.2% of US youth which was more than double the Dutch use and three times that of German youth.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prominent differences in psychotropic medication treatment patterns exist between youth in the US and Western Europe and within Western Europe. Differences in policies regarding direct to consumer drug advertising, government regulatory restrictions, reimbursement policies, diagnostic classification systems, and cultural beliefs regarding the role of medication for emotional and behavioral treatment are likely to account for these differences.</p

Current issues around the pharmacotherapy of ADHD in children and adults

Background New drugs and new formulations enter the growing market for ADHD medication. The growing awareness of possible persistence of ADHD impairment beyond childhood and adolescence resulting in increased pharmacotherapy of ADHD in adults, is also a good reason for making an inventory of the what is generally known about pharmacotherapy in ADHD. Aim To discuss current issues in the possible pharmacotherapy treatment of ADHD in children, adolescents and adults with respect to the position of pharmacotherapy in ADHD treatment guidelines, the pharmacoepidemiological trends, and current concerns about the drugs used. Methods A search of the literature with an emphasis on the position of pharmacotherapy in ADHD treatment guidelines, the pharmacoepidemiological trends, and current concerns about the drugs used in pharmacotherapy. Results According to the guidelines, the treatment of ADHD in children consists of psychosocial interventions in combination with pharmacotherapy when needed. Stimulants are the first-choice drugs in the pharmacological treatment of ADHD in children despite a number of well known and frequently reported side effects like sleep disorders and loss of appetite. With regard to the treatment of adults, stimulant treatment was recommended as the first-choice pharmacotherapy in the single guideline available. Both in children and adults, there appears to be an additional though limited role for the nonadrenergic drug atomoxetine. The increase of ADHD medication use, in children, adolescents and in adults, can not only be interpreted as a sign of overdiagnosis of ADHD. Despite the frequent use of stimulants, there is still a lack of clarity on the effects of long-term use on growth and nutritional status of children. Cardiovascular effects of both stimulants and atomoxetine are rare but can be severe. The literature suggests that atomoxetine may be associated with suicidal ideation in children. Conclusion Although pharmacotherapy is increasing common in the treatment of ADHD in both children and adults, there are still a lot of questions about side effects and how best to counter them. This suggests an important role for close monitoring of children and adults treated with stimulants or atomoxetine