The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

The management of acne vulgaris in primary care: a cohort study of consulting and prescribing patterns using CPRD

The management of acne vulgaris in primary care: a cohort study of consulting and prescribing patterns using CPRD
The management of acne vulgaris in primary care: a cohort study of consulting and prescribing patterns using CPRD
Background: Effective management of acne vulgaris in primary care involves support (usually provided over a number of consultations) and prescribing effective treatments. However, consulting and prescribing patterns for acne in primary care are not well described.

Objective: To describe the rate of primary care consultations and follow-up consultations; prescribing patterns, including overall use of acne related medications (ARM) and initial and follow-up prescribing, for acne vulgaris in the UK.

Methods: UK primary care acne consultations and prescriptions for ARMs were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Annual consultation rates (between 2004 and 2013) by age and gender, new consultations and consultations in the subsequent year; prescribing trends, prescribing during a new consultation and over the subsequent 90 days and year were calculated, using number of registered patients as the denominator.

Results: 65.9% of patients who had a new acne consultation had no further acne consultations in the subsequent year. 26.6%, 25.2%, 23.5% and 2.8% of patients were prescribed no ARM, an oral antibiotic, a topical antibiotic, or an oral plus topical antibiotic respectively during a new acne consultation. 59.9% and 38.5% of patients prescribed an ARM received no further ARM prescriptions in the following 90 days and one year respectively, despite most prescriptions being for 2 months or less. Prescribing rates for lymecycline and topical combined clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide increased substantially between 2004 and 2013. There were no important changes in consultation rates between 2004 and 2013.

Conclusion: These data suggest that patients with acne are receiving sub-optimal initial choice of ARMs, longitudinal care and prescribing.
0007-0963
107-115
Francis, N.A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Entwistle, K.
58f636df-3027-40d5-964d-20b5c7d7248b
Santer, M.
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Layton, A.M.
14692ed0-1f61-4f3b-84ac-92a222ffbc1a
Eady, E.A.
9da545a4-7e0a-4652-aa9a-d9bef3e3e820
Butler, C.C.
736f78ad-3e18-4c63-900f-c2249577b645
Francis, N.A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Entwistle, K.
58f636df-3027-40d5-964d-20b5c7d7248b
Santer, M.
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Layton, A.M.
14692ed0-1f61-4f3b-84ac-92a222ffbc1a
Eady, E.A.
9da545a4-7e0a-4652-aa9a-d9bef3e3e820
Butler, C.C.
736f78ad-3e18-4c63-900f-c2249577b645

Francis, N.A., Entwistle, K., Santer, M., Layton, A.M., Eady, E.A. and Butler, C.C. (2017) The management of acne vulgaris in primary care: a cohort study of consulting and prescribing patterns using CPRD. British Journal of Dermatology, 176 (1), 107-115. (doi:10.1111/bjd.15081).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Effective management of acne vulgaris in primary care involves support (usually provided over a number of consultations) and prescribing effective treatments. However, consulting and prescribing patterns for acne in primary care are not well described.

Objective: To describe the rate of primary care consultations and follow-up consultations; prescribing patterns, including overall use of acne related medications (ARM) and initial and follow-up prescribing, for acne vulgaris in the UK.

Methods: UK primary care acne consultations and prescriptions for ARMs were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Annual consultation rates (between 2004 and 2013) by age and gender, new consultations and consultations in the subsequent year; prescribing trends, prescribing during a new consultation and over the subsequent 90 days and year were calculated, using number of registered patients as the denominator.

Results: 65.9% of patients who had a new acne consultation had no further acne consultations in the subsequent year. 26.6%, 25.2%, 23.5% and 2.8% of patients were prescribed no ARM, an oral antibiotic, a topical antibiotic, or an oral plus topical antibiotic respectively during a new acne consultation. 59.9% and 38.5% of patients prescribed an ARM received no further ARM prescriptions in the following 90 days and one year respectively, despite most prescriptions being for 2 months or less. Prescribing rates for lymecycline and topical combined clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide increased substantially between 2004 and 2013. There were no important changes in consultation rates between 2004 and 2013.

Conclusion: These data suggest that patients with acne are receiving sub-optimal initial choice of ARMs, longitudinal care and prescribing.

Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_PersonalFiles_Users_ms5v08_mydocuments_acne_Nick_Francis_et_al-2016-British_Journal_of_Dermatology.pdf - Accepted Manuscript
Download (448kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 19 September 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 22 September 2016
Published date: January 2017
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 401682
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/401682
ISSN: 0007-0963
PURE UUID: aaad37a7-a58f-4b16-bb06-9f6f8623b653
ORCID for N.A. Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312
ORCID for M. Santer: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 19 Oct 2016 12:59
Last modified: 10 Jan 2022 05:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: N.A. Francis ORCID iD
Author: K. Entwistle
Author: M. Santer ORCID iD
Author: A.M. Layton
Author: E.A. Eady
Author: C.C. Butler

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×