The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7367 p337
17 September 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 110K, Acrobat Reader

· Homoeopathy (5)
· Dermatology
· Spacer devices
· The profession
· Best use of medicines
· Pharmacists in the media
· Reciprocity
· Return to practice
· The Society (4)

Letters to the Editor

Spacer devices

Why is a more expensive option being promoted?

From Mr A. Sutherland, MRPharmS

I read with interest the news article about the discontinuation of the Volumatic spacer device by GlaxoSmithKline (PJ, 20 August, p215). I was wondering if we could have some more light shed on the decision to discontinue the Volumatic, and how much GSK stands to make out of the NHS as a consequence?

Until recently I was senior paediatric pharmacist in a busy general hospital in East London, and as such we used a large number of spacer devices, in line with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance. Our device of choice was the Volumatic (£2.75). When I came to price the change to the Aerochamber I was concerned to note that the new device cost £7.27 (Drug Tariff, June 2005).

This represented an almost 300 per cent cost increase on a budget that was already seriously overstretched, due to the increasing burden of chronic care on secondary care resources.

I had no concerns over the efficacy of the differing products since, in my experience, an empty Smarties tube would work as a spacer, but I do take issue with a discontinuation of a cheaper product and the aggressive influence towards the more expensive option. Could GSK have reduced the price of the Aerochamber to that of the Volumatic, I wonder? Or did the pound signs roll up before their eyes?

Adam Sutherland
Glasgow

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Dermatology)
Next Topic (The profession)