NHS "waste" millions on designer drugs

[The_Exile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14999853

Any type 1 Diabetics on here?

This riles me, I'm a type 1 diabetic, makes us sound as if we're strutting around with Armani insulin, it's not designer insulin, it's "Analogue" insulin, it makes living with type 1 diabetes a doddle compared to what we used to have to go through to manage the condition. Why do the media do this? It's not only poor journalism, but a lot of people just look at the papers and believe what's in them, this story is absolute horse ****.

The BBC regurgitate this story every year and just change the figures, I see they've got some quotes from people this time though, strange as they always struggle to get doctors and healthcare professionals to comment on utter bullcack like this.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i inject both humalog and lantus :aok: they changed me onto the lantus 3 years ago and it made a huge difference(all good) for me :clapper:

[RyeSloan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14999853

Any type 1 Diabetics on here?

This riles me, I'm a type 1 diabetic, makes us sound as if we're strutting around with Armani insulin, it's not designer insulin, it's "Analogue" insulin, it makes living with type 1 diabetes a doddle compared to what we used to have to go through to manage the condition. Why do the media do this? It's not only poor journalism, but a lot of people just look at the papers and believe what's in them, this story is absolute horse ****.

The BBC regurgitate this story every year and just change the figures, I see they've got some quotes from people this time though, strange as they always struggle to get doctors and healthcare professionals to comment on utter bullcack like this.

Why grump at the BBC...they are merely reporting findings.

The article states:

"The medicines watchdog NICE recommends that ordinary human insulins are used as a first-line treatment, with the newer "designer" human insulins reserved for exceptional circumstances.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "NICE guidance recommends that human insulin is the preferred option when insulin therapy is necessary in Type 2 diabetes"

Yet the report has found that 85% of the total insulin prescribed is now the analogue type.

No doubting that you have benefited from using this and probalby many others as well but the report would seem to inidcate that the NHS has defaulted to prescribing the analouge type which would appear to go against current guidlines...hence the extrapolation of the value of the 'waste'.

I agree some of the terminology is a bit strong..even small benefits to most patients may well be worth the extra cost but considering the NHS is publicly funded there is a case to say that we can't simply afford to give everyone the latest version of every drug without considering the possiblity that cheaper more basic varients may well be effective in a significant portion of patients.

[Jack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14999853

Any type 1 Diabetics on here?

This riles me, I'm a type 1 diabetic, makes us sound as if we're strutting around with Armani insulin, it's not designer insulin, it's "Analogue" insulin, it makes living with type 1 diabetes a doddle compared to what we used to have to go through to manage the condition. Why do the media do this? It's not only poor journalism, but a lot of people just look at the papers and believe what's in them, this story is absolute horse ****.

The BBC regurgitate this story every year and just change the figures, I see they've got some quotes from people this time though, strange as they always struggle to get doctors and healthcare professionals to comment on utter bullcack like this.

As far as I am aware doctors should be prescribing the cheapest form of medicine they think will be appropriate for the patient. If the results are not as expected then move on to something else.

I agree with you that a lot of these things are sensationalised in the press having been raised by researchers keen to hold on to their research grants.

I would however suggest you clam down before you need pills for your blood pressure too :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Why grump at the BBC...they are merely reporting findings.

The article states:

"The medicines watchdog NICE recommends that ordinary human insulins are used as a first-line treatment, with the newer "designer" human insulins reserved for exceptional circumstances.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "NICE guidance recommends that human insulin is the preferred option when insulin therapy is necessary in Type 2 diabetes"

Yet the report has found that 85% of the total insulin prescribed is now the analogue type.

No doubting that you have benefited from using this and probalby many others as well but the report would seem to inidcate that the NHS has defaulted to prescribing the analouge type which would appear to go against current guidlines...hence the extrapolation of the value of the 'waste'.

I agree some of the terminology is a bit strong..even small benefits to most patients may well be worth the extra cost but considering the NHS is publicly funded there is a case to say that we can't simply afford to give everyone the latest version of every drug without considering the possiblity that cheaper more basic varients may well be effective in a significant portion of patients.

I have no knowledge of the efficacy of either type of insulin, but I can share the anger at the report.

Why?

1) The repeated use of "designer" (including the inverted comas) rather than "analogue" to describe the drug in a pejorative manner
2) This sentence (my emphasis): Based on the assumption that all patients could have been prescribed alternative forms of insulin, the NHS could have saved itself £625m, said the Cardiff University report. How valid is that assumption?
3) The comment from the guy at the Diabetes UK is at the bottom of the article and is sensible and balanced, but it is an afterthought. The headline could equally have been "Diabetes charity says that drugs should be available on a needs basis", but no, that wouldnt be much of a report would it?

It is to me sloppy an unbalanced, and I can fully see why the users of such drugs are angered by it.

[RyeSloan]

I have no knowledge of the efficacy of either type of insulin, but I can share the anger at the report.

Why?

1) The repeated use of "designer" (including the inverted comas) rather than "analogue" to describe the drug in a pejorative manner
2) This sentence (my emphasis): Based on the assumption that all patients could have been prescribed alternative forms of insulin, the NHS could have saved itself £625m, said the Cardiff University report. How valid is that assumption?
3) The comment from the guy at the Diabetes UK is at the bottom of the article and is sensible and balanced, but it is an afterthought. The headline could equally have been "Diabetes charity says that drugs should be available on a needs basis", but no, that wouldnt be much of a report would it?

It is to me sloppy an unbalanced, and I can fully see why the users of such drugs are angered by it.

Take your point about 'designer' being used too frequently but to be fair this is a term I have seen used quite a lot elsewhere to describe these types of drugs that have had a lab tweak although it is clearly oversued.

I'm not quite sure how you can claim the piece is sloppy though...barring it's use of the word designer it is largely reporting the findings of the study. A quick look on BMJ Open (referenced in the article) shows the BMJ OPen report summary as stating "If it is assumed that all patients using insulin analogues could have received human insulin instead, the overall incremental cost of analogue insulin was £625 million"...is that not pretty much exactly what has been reported by the BBC?

I also don't see how it is unbalanced...the report is based on the BMJ Open journal so you would expect that to be the main thrust of the article, which it is but the balance is there for all to see with comments from a University Department, the Department of Health the quoting of NICE guidelines and of course Diabetes UK.

Not that this impacts me directly in any way I just don't see the reason to call the story as horse*** or claim that it's being reported in a sloppy or unbalanced way. Maybe the original study is but it seems a bit strange to shoot the messenger just over the use of the word designer..especially when you consider that fact that the study may well have highlighted the gross over prescription of a drug that may have cost the NHS over £600m!!

[The_Exile]

Fair comments, I was raging at the time of the OP, it's becoming more common for this type of thing where savings need to be made, I'm on the waiting list for a pump but they withdrew funding for this 2 years ago! Analogue Insulin has given me a new lease of life, if I was told to go back onto the old cheaper insulin I would be gutted, you're basically forced to eat at certain times throughout the day or go into hypoglycemia, with analog you can eat when you like and the blood glucose control is fantastic, hence less complications, so analogue insulin is probably saving the NHS Money in the long run!

The main problem is that mass media hardly ever differentiate between type 1 and type 2 Diabetes (90% of Diabetics are type 2, 10% are type 1), and if they do, a lot of people don't know the difference, lot of folk think Diabetes is something you get if you live an unhealthy lifestyle so tend to generalise, which in my experience, shows through in the vast majority of news articles.

I'm trying hard not to moan about the team lately so it's perhaps manifesting itself a bit aggressively over other things :greengrin

[The_Exile]

i inject both humalog and lantus :aok: they changed me onto the lantus 3 years ago and it made a huge difference(all good) for me :clapper:

I'm on Humalog and Levemir, was on Lantus but found it made me feel knackered and lethargic, put on a bit of weight when I started it too, was 10 stone for about 10 years then shot up to 12 stone after a year on Lantus, switched to Levemir and feel brilliant :agree:

[cabbageandribs1875]

I'm on Humalog and Levemir, was on Lantus but found it made me feel knackered and lethargic, put on a bit of weight when I started it too, was 10 stone for about 10 years then shot up to 12 stone after a year on Lantus, switched to Levemir and feel brilliant :agree:


ditto :greengrin but my BMI is now exactly what it should be for my height :agree: mind you though, i stopped smoking 40:smokin/day at the same time as the introduction of lantus instead of humulin I, smoking and diabetes just dont mix :rolleyes:

[Green and white]

There would be plenty money to buy these necessary drugs if the ****ing wbankers didn't piss it all away. My old man has diabetes and although he is a absolute prat I wouldn't wish this on him. You know he's only ever taken me to see the hibs twice when I was 6 or younger. My uncle has taken me to many over the years and if it wasn't for his influence on me I doubt I would of been a hibs fan (staying in port glasgow being the only hibee in town). My dads diabetes is the type where your a fat ******* and eat all the pies, not the genetic type.

Sorry lads, rant over.:flag:

[cabbageandribs1875]

My uncle has taken me to many over the years and if it wasn't for his influence on me I doubt I would of been a hibs fan (staying in port glasgow being the only hibee in town). My dads diabetes is the type where your a fat ******* and eat all the pies, not the genetic type.

Sorry lads, rant over.:flag:


theres a port glasgow hibs, surely one of the players is a hibby :greengrin

[Jonnyboy]

ditto :greengrin but my BMI is now exactly what it should be for my height :agree: mind you though, i stopped smoking 40:smokin/day at the same time as the introduction of lantus instead of humulin I, smoking and diabetes just dont mix :rolleyes:

According to my BMI I should be 8' 11" :greengrin

[The_Exile]

According to my old boy's BMI he should be living up a beanstalk :greengrin

[The_Exile]

he's only ever taken me to see the hibs twice

To be honest bud, he was probably only looking out for your long term sanity :greengrin

[Green and white]

theres a port glasgow hibs, surely one of the players is a hibby :greengrin

yes there is a football team the "port hibs" and a hibs club "ancient order of hibernian" full of celtic fans unfortunately I'm the only person who drinks in the club (they accept me for I'm still green and white) many of them have tried to turn me but I remain strong. As for the football team it's full of absolute wools.

[Green and white]

To be honest bud, he was probably only looking out for your long term sanity :greengrin

haha quality post mate, v witty!

admins should look into a rep power system on hibs.net

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why grump at the BBC...they are merely reporting findings.

The article states:

"The medicines watchdog NICE recommends that ordinary human insulins are used as a first-line treatment, with the newer "designer" human insulins reserved for exceptional circumstances.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "NICE guidance recommends that human insulin is the preferred option when insulin therapy is necessary in Type 2 diabetes"

Yet the report has found that 85% of the total insulin prescribed is now the analogue type.

No doubting that you have benefited from using this and probalby many others as well but the report would seem to inidcate that the NHS has defaulted to prescribing the analouge type which would appear to go against current guidlines...hence the extrapolation of the value of the 'waste'.

I agree some of the terminology is a bit strong..even small benefits to most patients may well be worth the extra cost but considering the NHS is publicly funded there is a case to say that we can't simply afford to give everyone the latest version of every drug without considering the possiblity that cheaper more basic varients may well be effective in a significant portion of patients.


A pet hate of mine, so apologies if im being overly pedantic.

NICE is the medicines watchdog for England and Wales - NOT Scotland, which has different bodies (SMC and SIGN).

Also, the Department of Health, is in effect the English Department of Health, and has absolutely no control over NHS Scotland (or NI, or Wales).

It annoys me that the UK-wide BBC consistently fails to make these distinctions or note the differences - there is no UK-wide NHS anymore, NHS Scotland is completely seperate, funded seprately and makes decisions seperately.

[RyeSloan]

A pet hate of mine, so apologies if im being overly pedantic.

NICE is the medicines watchdog for England and Wales - NOT Scotland, which has different bodies (SMC and SIGN).

Also, the Department of Health, is in effect the English Department of Health, and has absolutely no control over NHS Scotland (or NI, or Wales).

It annoys me that the UK-wide BBC consistently fails to make these distinctions or note the differences - there is no UK-wide NHS anymore, NHS Scotland is completely seperate, funded seprately and makes decisions seperately.

You are of course correct however I assumed the report was based on the English NHS which I also assume is signficantly larger than the Scottish version. You are also correct in saying the BBC should make the destinction but I also think it's there by default, if the Scottish or Welsh NHS is not specifically mentioned you can be pretty sure it is the English NHS that is being discussed.

Who knows what the Scottish slant on this story is as there seems precious little time spent trying to measure the effectiveness of the differing systems. In fact Health authorities (across all UK borders) seem quite determined to measure their performance in a way that cannot be easily laid over each others, not an accident if you ask me....Yet another example of where we simply fail to demand value for money from the NHS, be that if you are England, Scotland or Wales.