The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7241 p401
22 March 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  Supermarket pharmacy
  CPD
  Advertising
  Prescription charges
  Homoeopathy
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Advertising

What about publicising cost-effectiveness?

From Miss E. R. Summerfield, MRPharmS

When I looked at the results of the ALLHAT trial I agreed with the conclusions that the results "indicate that thiazide-type diuretics should be considered first for pharmacologic therapy in patients with hypertension. They are unsurpassed in lowering BP, reducing clinical events, and tolerability and they are less costly."¹ So, like Peter Burrill (PJ, 1 March, p302), I was also surprised when Pfizer was able to use the ALLHAT trial to support the advertisement of Istin (amlodipine).

Even if one accepts that amlodipine is equivalent to a diuretic in stroke outcome and ignores the heart failure data, it is still 15 to 20 times more expensive than a thiazide.

It does not take a genius to realise that thiazides are significantly more cost-effective. But no one is going to advertise a thiazide because there is no money to be made — other than possible savings in the already strained National Health Service prescribing budgets.

Eloise Summerfield
Mansfield, Nottinghamshire

Interim analysis of ALLHAT trial disseminated

From Dr K. Lloyd, FRCP

Following the observation by David Reece (PJ, 8 March, p334) that he did not see a Pfizer advertisement related to the interim analysis of the ALLHAT trial, I would point out that in March 2002, Pfizer wrote to all practising GPs, cardiologists and community pharmacists in the United Kingdom informing them of the results.

Kate Lloyd
Medical Director
Pfizer Ltd

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)
Next Topic (Prescription charges)