The impact of over‐the‐counter simvastatin on the number of statin prescriptions in the United Kingdom: a view from the General Practice Research Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The United Kingdom (UK) government changed the prescription policy of statins, making low-dose simvastatin (10 mg) available as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug in August 2004. We assessed the impact of this policy change on statin prescribing. METHODS: We examined all statin prescriptions in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), a well-validated database of approximately 3.5 million patients, from the first quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2005. RESULTS: From 2001, the number of statin prescriptions written for GPRD patients was increasing by approximately 437 prescriptions per 100,000 people per quarter until the time of the policy change. Over the four quarters post-policy implementation, however, this trend changed abruptly (p < 0.0001) with a decrease of 281 prescriptions per 100,000 people per quarter. This decrease was not restricted to prescriptions of 10 mg statins but was also observed for statin prescriptions of >or=20 mg. Several other cardiovascular medications displayed a similar trend as that observed in the number of statin prescriptions. This trend was not observed among non-cardiovascular control medications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the policy allowing the OTC sale of 10 mg simvastatin has had a significant impact on statin prescriptions by general practitioners. However, this new policy may also be leading to less aggressive statin therapy. An alternative explanation for the observed decrease in statin prescriptions may be related to the unknown factors responsible for the overall decrease observed with other cardiovascular prescription drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".