Letters to the Editor
- Aust Prescr 2011;34:166-8
- 1 December 2011
- DOI: 10.18773/austprescr.2011.089
The Editorial Executive Committee welcomes letters, which should be less than 250 words. Before a decision to publish is made, letters which refer to a published article may be sent to the author for a response. Any letter may be sent to an expert for comment. When letters are published, they are usually accompanied in the same issue by their responses or comments. The Committee screens out discourteous, inaccurate or libellous statements. The letters are sub-edited before publication. Authors are required to declare any conflicts of interest. The Committee's decision on publication is final.
Editor, – I write in response to the anaphylaxis wallchart1 and would like to comment on the impracticality of advising Epipen as an alternative to adrenaline ampoules and syringe.
I am sure the Editorial Committee of Australian Prescriber are aware that Epipen is only subsidised when it is prescribed by clinical immunologists, paediatricians and respiratory physicians but not by other health professionals. Other doctors must purchase it privately at a cost of $104. Because it does not last long, replacing stock is costly. Even when I was a member of the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, I could not prescribe Epipen on authority as I am a dermatologist. It did not matter that some of my patients with eczema had a severe peanut or latex allergy, I still was not allowed to write an authority prescription.
Perhaps if Epipen was available as a doctor's bag item under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS),2 health professionals may have better access. It would make sense to have Epipen as an alternative on the wallchart, but until such time, it is too expensive to place it as a viable alternative to adrenaline ampoules for health professionals.