Back to Browse Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 1 » Issue 1

Differential associations between actual and expected GP practice prescribing rates for statins, ACE inhibitors, and beta-blockers: a cross-sectional study in England

Authors Paul R Ward, Peter R Noyce, Antony S St Leger

Published Date January 2005 Volume 2005:1(1) Pages 61—68

DOI http://dx.doi.org/

Published 20 January 2005

Paul R Ward1, Peter R Noyce2, Antony S St Leger3

1School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, England, UK; 2School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, England, UK; 3School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, England, UK

Aim: To explore the relationship between actual and expected general medical practitioner (GP) practice prescribing rates for statins, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and beta-blockers.

Background: There is a growing body of literature highlighting inequities in GP practice prescribing rates for many drug therapies. The equity of prescribing is of central importance in the area of therapeutics since it explores the interface between those patients who should and those who actually do receive a drug therapy.

Setting: Four primary care trusts (PCTs 1–4) in the North West of England, including 132 GP practices.

Methods: Actual and expected prescribing rates for statins, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors were specifically developed for each GP practice.

Results: There were no statistically significant correlations between actual and expected prescribing rates in PCT2 and PCT3, although in PCT1 there were statistically significant correlations for statins (0.286, p < 0.05) and ACE inhibitors (0.381, p < 0.01). In PCT4, correlations were moderate to high for beta-blockers (0.693, p < 0.01), and moderate for statins (0.541, p < 0.05) and ACE inhibitors (0.585, p < 0.01). Scatterplots highlighted large variations between individual GP practices (both within and between PCTs) in terms of the relationship between actual and expected prescribing rates.

Conclusion: This paper highlights variability between PCTs and GP practices in terms of the relationship between actual and expected prescribing rates. The findings from this paper may further advance the suggestion of inequities in prescribing rates for coronary heart disease (CHD) drugs, and studies such as this may be repeated in different therapeutic areas, healthcare settings, and countries.

Keywords: prescribing rates, equity, coronary heart disease, statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitor

Download Article [PDF] 

Readers of this article also read:

Tenofovir-associated bone density loss

Iwen F Grigsby, Lan Pham, Louis M Mansky, et al

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2010, 6:41-47

Published Date: 24 December 2009

The benefits and risks of testosterone replacement therapy: a review

Nazem Bassil, Saad Alkaade, John E Morley

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2009, 5:427-448

Published Date: 11 June 2009

Role of aliskiren in cardio-renal protection and use in hypertensives with multiple risk factors

Eduardo Pimenta, Suzanne Oparil

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2009, 5:453-463

Published Date: 19 May 2009

Bone resorption in incompletely impacted mandibular third molars and acute pericoronitis

Minoru Yamaoka, Yusuke Ono, Masahiro Takahashi, Ryosuke Doto, et al.

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry 2009, 1:7-12

Published Date: 14 April 2009

Local anesthetic failure associated with inflammation: verification of the acidosis mechanism and the hypothetic participation of inflammatory peroxynitrite

Takahiro Ueno, Hironori Tsuchiya, Maki Mizogami, Ko Takakura

Journal of Inflammation Research 2008, 1:41-48

Published Date: 13 November 2008

Risk factors of allergic rhinitis: genetic or environmental?

De-Yun Wang

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2005, 1:115-123

Published Date: 20 January 2005

Renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit

Neesh Pannu, RT Noel Gibney

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2005, 1:141-150

Published Date: 20 January 2005