Premium
Repeat prescribing of ulcer healing drugs in general practice—prevalence and underlying diagnosis
Author(s) -
GOUDIE B. M.,
McKENZIE P. E.,
CIPRIANO J.,
GRIFFIN E. M.,
MURRAY F. E.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
alimentary pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.308
H-Index - 177
eISSN - 1365-2036
pISSN - 0269-2813
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1996.717897000.x
Subject(s) - medicine , medical prescription , ranitidine , population , disease , peptic ulcer , barium meal , peptic , pharmacology , environmental health
Background : The long‐term use of ulcer healing drugs in the management of dyspepsia is controversial. We have investigated repeat prescribing of these drugs in a general practice population. Aims : To identify the number of patients authorized to receive repeat prescriptions for ulcer healing drugs, and to review the investigation status and diagnosis in these patients. Subjects : A total of 15495 patients registered with eight general practitioners in seven general practices in Dundee, UK. Methods : Case ascertainment by review of practice repeat prescribing registers. Data regarding investigation and diagnosis obtained by retrospective review of general practice case records. Results : Six hundred and seventy‐nine (4.4% of the total population) were authorized to receive repeat prescriptions for ulcer healing drugs. Six hundred and fifty‐one (4.2%) were authorized to receive repeat prescriptions for H 2 ‐antagonists. Ranitidine was prescribed in 583 (86% of patients receiving ulcer healing drugs). Endoscopy had been performed in 426 (63%) and barium meal alone in 113 (17%); 140 (21%) had not been investigated. A diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease or oesophagitis was established in 382 (56%). However, 157 investigated patients (23% of all patients on ulcer healing drugs) did not have a peptic diagnosis. Conclusions : The prevalence of repeat prescribing of ulcer healing drugs in the general practice population studied was 4.4%, but 44% of these patients did not have a confirmed diagnosis of acid peptic disease.