Blog

Please chooseI’m not a medical professional.Allergy and ImmunologyAnatomyAnesthesiologyBiostatisticsCardiac/Thoracic/Vascular SurgeryCardiologyCritical CareDentistryDermatologyDiabetes and EndocrinologyEmergency MedicineEpidemiology and Public HealthFamily MedicineForensic MedicineGastroenterologyGeneral PracticeGeneticsGeriatricsHealth PolicyHematologyHIV/AIDSHospital-based MedicineI’m not a medical professional.Infectious DiseaseIntegrative/Complementary MedicineInternal MedicineInternal Medicine-PediatricsMedical Education and SimulationMedical PhysicsMedical StudentNephrologyNeurological SurgeryNeurologyNuclear MedicineNutritionObstetrics and GynecologyOccupational HealthOncologyOphthalmologyOptometryOral MedicineOrthopaedicsOsteopathic MedicineOtolaryngologyPain ManagementPalliative CarePathologyPediatricsPediatric SurgeryPharmacologyPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationPlastic SurgeryPodiatryPreventive MedicinePsychiatryPsychologyPulmonologyRadiation OncologyRadiologyRheumatologySubstance Use and AddictionSurgeryTherapeuticsTraumaUrologyMiscellaneous

The government has amended prescribing regulations to allow the antivirals oseltamivir (Tamiflu; Roche) and zanamivir (Relenza; GSK) to be prescribed and dispensed outside of the flu season.

On 1 September 2025, the government said the rule change “will allow doctors and pharmacists to better respond to flu outbreaks”.

“These rules are being removed so action can be taken to tackle flu all year round. This will allow patients to receive treatment sooner and ease winter pressures by allowing outbreaks to be contained,” it added.

Previously, GPs and pharmacies had to be commissioned via a patient-specific direction to prescribe the medicines, but the government noted that this could lead to delays in treatment.

Both oseltamivir and zanamivir are recommended for treating high-risk individuals, following a confirmatory test for flu. 

“They are also recommended to prevent disease in specific settings, such as care homes, where confirmed cases of flu have occurred,” the government said.

The removal of restrictions coincides with the launch of the 2025/2026 flu vaccination programme for pregnant women and children.

Health minister Stephen Kinnock commented: “Flu can strike all year round, so it doesn’t make sense to restrict doctors and pharmacists from taking action to protect the most vulnerable in their communities.

“That’s why, as well as starting the flu vaccination programme today, we are also removing the need for clinicians to have to ask for permission to prescribe what their patients need.”

Jamie Lopez Bernal, consultant epidemiologist for immunisation at the UK Health Security Agency, said: “While the majority of influenza cases and outbreaks occur during the flu season, we do continue to see outbreaks outside the peak period.

“These changes will allow primary care providers and health protection teams to respond more rapidly with effective treatment to reduce the risk of severe disease and the spread of infection at any time of year.”

Claire Anderson, president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, added: “This is a welcome change and will help patients at highest risk of serious illness from flu get timely access to treatment all year round. 

“Pharmacists play a vital role in protecting public health, and this flexibility will support quicker responses to outbreaks, reduce pressures on the NHS and protect vulnerable patients.”

In July 2025, NHS England announced that community pharmacies will be able to provide flu vaccines to children aged two to three years, as part of a trial commissioned for the 2025/2026 winter season.

Drug-coated stents and balloons were not associated with reduced risk of amputation or improved quality of life compared with uncoated devices in two trials in peripheral artery disease (PAD), according to late-breaking research presented in a Hot Line session today at ESC Congress 2025.

Explaining the rationale for the trials, Principal Co-Investigator, Professor Joakim Nordanstig from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said: “Drug-coated balloons and stents have been shown to reduce restenosis and the need for reinterventions in the endovascular treatment of PAD. However, there are uncertainties regarding whether drug-coated devices improve outcomes that are meaningful to patients, quality of life and reducing amputations, and there are some concerns over safety. We investigated these and other endpoints in two trials in PAD – one in chronic limb-threatening ischaemia and one in intermittent claudication – comparing drug-coated and uncoated devices.“

SWEDEPAD 1 and 2 were pragmatic, participant-blinded, registry-based randomized trials conducted at 22 sites in Sweden.

In SWEDEPAD 1, 2,355 patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (Rutherford stage 4-6) undergoing infra-inguinal endovascular treatment were randomised 1:1 to drug-coated or uncoated balloons or stents. In nearly all of the drug-coated devices implanted, the drug delivered was paclitaxel (>99%). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of time to ipsilateral above-ankle amputation with drug-coated vs. uncoated devices (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.27) over 5 years of follow-up. Target vessel reinterventions were reduced in the drug-coated group during the first year (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98), but this difference disappeared with longer follow-up. There was no difference in all-cause mortality or in quality of life (as assessed using the VascuQoL-6 questionnaire).

In SWEDEPAD 2, 1,155 patients with intermittent claudication (Rutherford stage 1-3) undergoing infra-inguinal endovascular treatment were randomised 1:1 after successful guidewire crossing to receive either drug-coated or uncoated balloons or stents. All drug-coated devices implanted delivered paclitaxel. There was no difference in the primary efficacy endpoint of quality of life between the drug-coated and uncoated groups at 12 months (mean difference in VascuQoL-6 scores: -0.02; 95% CI -0.66 to 0.62). Target vessel reintervention rates were not different at 1 year or over a median follow-up of 6.2 years. All-cause mortality did not differ over 7.1 years (HR 1.18; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48), although higher 5-year mortality was noted with drug-coated vs. uncoated devices (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.98).

Summarizing the findings, Principal Co-Investigator, Professor Mårten Falkenberg from Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said: “Paclitaxel-coated devices were not effective in preventing amputation in chronic limb-threatening ischemia or improving quality of life in intermittent claudication. Given the signal of increased mortality with intermittent claudication, clinicians should carefully evaluate the potential risks and benefits when considering these expensive devices. Devices incorporating antiproliferative agents other than paclitaxel warrant further investigation in PAD.”