4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Prescribing Patterns Before and After Implementation of a National Policy to Reduce Inappropriate Alprazolam Prescribing in Australia

      research-article
      , MSc, MBiostat, PhD 1 , , , MD 2 , , PhD 3 , 4 , , PhD 1 , 5
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study examines changes in alprazolam prescribing patterns after a national policy change that reduced alprazolam subsidies in Australia.

          Key Points

          Question

          Was implementation of changes to public subsidy of alprazolam associated with changes in alprazolam prescribing, dispensing, or poisonings?

          Findings

          In this interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study, after the February 2017 implementation of the policy intervention, subsidized dispensings decreased by 51.2% but prescribing approvals increased by 17.5%. Despite the policy reducing pack size, dispensing of more than 50 tablets also increased overall and among people receiving new alprazolam prescriptions.

          Meaning

          This study found a reduction in subsidized alprazolam use after the policy change, but prescribing contrary to best-practice recommendations was common, with a likely shift to the private market.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Benzodiazepines have been a common target for policy interventions to curtail inappropriate use, with mixed results. To reduce alprazolam misuse, in February 2017, Australia delisted the 2-mg tablet strength from public subsidy, eliminated refills, and reduced the pack size from 50 tablets to 10 tablets.

          Objective

          To describe changes in alprazolam dispensing, prescribing, and poisonings associated with the implementation of a new policy to reduce inappropriate prescription of alprazolam in Australia.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study included data from a 10% sample of Australian people who received publicly subsidized dispensing claims and prescribing approvals for alprazolam from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, and all calls to a poison information service involving alprazolam from February 1, 2015, to October 31, 2018. Autoregressive error models were used to quantify changes over time and compare patterns of use before and after the intervention. Data analyses were conducted from November 2018 to May 2019.

          Exposure

          Implementation of the policy change on February 1, 2017.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Monthly trends in alprazolam prescribing approvals and dispensings, quarterly trends in telephone calls involving alprazolam to a poison information service, and patterns of prescribing and dispensing before and after the intervention.

          Results

          From 2015 to 2018, there were 71 481 alprazolam dispensings to 6772 people. After the intervention, overall dispensing decreased by 51.2% (95% CI, 50.5%-51.9%) and prescribing approvals increased by 17.5% (95% CI, 13.0%-22.2%). Overall, the proportion of dispensing of packs of 51 to 100 tablets increased from 5776 of 24 282 dispensings (23.8%) to 4888 of 10 676 dispensings (45.8%) (risk difference [RD], 22.0% [95% CI, 19.4%-24.6%]) and dispensing of packs of more than 100 tablets increased from 1029 of 24 282 dispensings (4.2%) to 1774 of 10 676 dispensings (16.6%) (RD, 12.4% [95% CI, 10.6%-14.2%]). Among people receiving their first alprazolam prescription, initiation with packs of 10 tablets or fewer increased from 16 of 1127 people (1.4%) before the intervention to 139 of 589 people (23.6%) after the intervention (RD, 22.2% [95% CI, 18.7%-25.7%]). Alprazolam treatment initiation with packs of more than 50 tablets also increased from 63 of 1127 people (5.6%) before the intervention to 144 of 589 people (24.4%) after the intervention (RD, 18.9% [95% CI, 15.1%-22.6%]). During 1 year before the intervention, patients received a median (interquartile range [IQR]) total of 250 (50-600) tablets and median (IQR) total combined tablet strength of 188 (50-550) mg. During 1 year after the intervention, people were dispensed less alprazolam, with a median (IQR) total of 200 (50-500) tablets and median (IQR) total combined tablet strength of 120 (30-360) mg. There was little change in poisoning calls involving alprazolam.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This study found that after the policy intervention, subsidized alprazolam use decreased, but the increase in prescribing approvals placed additional burden on prescribers. Even after the intervention, most people who were dispensed alprazolam were still receiving treatment contrary to best-practice recommendations. Furthermore, the poison information center data suggested that people were still being dispensed the 2-mg tablet strength, presumably as nonsubsidized (ie, private) prescriptions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association between concurrent use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines and overdose: retrospective analysis

          Objectives To identify trends in concurrent use of a benzodiazepine and an opioid and to identify the impact of these trends on admissions to hospital and emergency room visits for opioid overdose. Design Retrospective analysis of claims data, 2001-13. Setting Administrative health claims database. Participants 315 428 privately insured people aged 18-64 who were continuously enrolled in a health plan with medical and pharmacy benefits during the study period and who also filled at least one prescription for an opioid. Interventions Concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use, defined as an overlap of at least one day in the time periods covered by prescriptions for each drug. Main outcome measures Annual percentage of opioid users with concurrent benzodiazepine use; annual incidence of visits to emergency room and inpatient admissions for opioid overdose. Results 9% of opioid users also used a benzodiazepine in 2001, increasing to 17% in 2013 (80% relative increase). This increase was driven mainly by increases among intermittent, as opposed to chronic, opioid users. Compared with opioid users who did not use benzodiazepines, concurrent use of both drugs was associated with an increased risk of an emergency room visit or inpatient admission for opioid overdose (adjusted odds ratio 2.14, 95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.24; P<0.001) among all opioid users. The adjusted odds ratio for an emergency room visit or inpatient admission for opioid overdose was 1.42 (1.33 to 1.51; P<0.001) for intermittent opioid users and 1.81 (1.67 to 1.96; P<0.001) chronic opioid users. If this association is causal, elimination of concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use could reduce the risk of emergency room visits related to opioid use and inpatient admissions for opioid overdose by an estimated 15% (95% confidence interval 14 to 16). Conclusions From 2001 to 2013, concurrent benzodiazepine/opioid use sharply increased in a large sample of privately insured patients in the US and significantly contributed to the overall population risk of opioid overdose.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Benzodiazepines revisited--will we ever learn?

            To re-examine various aspects of the benzodiazepines (BZDs), widely prescribed for 50 years, mainly to treat anxiety and insomnia. It is a descriptive review based on the Okey Lecture delivered at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, in November 2010. A search of the literature was carried out in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Collaboration databases, using the codeword 'benzodiazepine(s)', alone and in conjunction with various terms such as 'dependence', 'abuse', etc. Further hand-searches were made based on the reference lists of key papers. As 60,000 references were found, this review is not exhaustive. It concentrates on the adverse effects, dependence and abuse. Almost from their introduction the BZDs have been controversial, with polarized opinions, advocates pointing out their efficacy, tolerability and patient acceptability, opponents deprecating their adverse effects, dependence and abuse liability. More recently, the advent of alternative and usually safer medications has opened up the debate. The review noted a series of adverse effects that continued to cause concern, such as cognitive and psychomotor impairment. In addition, dependence and abuse remain as serious problems. Despite warnings and guidelines, usage of these drugs remains at a high level. The limitations in their use both as choice of therapy and with respect to conservative dosage and duration of use are highlighted. The distinction between low-dose 'iatrogenic' dependence and high-dose abuse/misuse is emphasized. The practical problems with the benzodiazepines have persisted for 50 years, but have been ignored by many practitioners and almost all official bodies. The risk-benefit ratio of the benzodiazepines remains positive in most patients in the short term (2-4 weeks) but is unestablished beyond that time, due mainly to the difficulty in preventing short-term use from extending indefinitely with the risk of dependence. Other research issues include the possibility of long-term brain changes and evaluating the role of the benzodiazepine antagonist, flumazenil, in aiding withdrawal. © 2011 The Author, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Emergency Department Visits and Overdose Deaths From Combined Use of Opioids and Benzodiazepines.

              Opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines are the prescription drugs most commonly associated with drug overdose deaths. This study was conducted to assess trends in nonmedical use-related emergency department (ED) visits and drug overdose deaths that involved both opioid analgesics and benzodiazepines in the U.S. from 2004 to 2011.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                18 September 2019
                September 2019
                18 September 2019
                : 2
                : 9
                : e1911590
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [3 ]School of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [4 ]New South Wales Poisons Information Centre, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
                [5 ]Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 30, 2019.
                Published: September 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11590
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Schaffer AL et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Andrea L. Schaffer, MSc, MBiostat, PhD, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales Sydney, Cnr High Street and Botany Street, Level 4, Lowy Research Centre, Sydney 2052, Australia ( andrea.schaffer@ 123456unsw.edu.au ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Schaffer had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Schaffer, Buckley, Pearson.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Schaffer, Cairns.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Schaffer.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Schaffer.
                Obtained funding: Pearson.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Pearson.
                Supervision: Buckley, Pearson.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Schaffer reported receiving grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr Cairns reported receiving grants from Seqirus outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This research was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing (grant 1060407) and a Cooperative Research Centre Project Grant from the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (grant CRC-P-439). Dr Schaffer is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (grant 1158763).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: The Australian Department of Human Services and the staff of the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre provided the data for this study. Alicia Segrave, PhD (Australian Department of Health), provided advice. None of these received compensation outside of their typical salaries.
                Article
                zoi190451
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11590
                6751760
                31532519
                37036728-aaa4-46e9-8f7b-de7633233619
                Copyright 2019 Schaffer AL et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 19 May 2019
                : 30 July 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council
                Funded by: Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing
                Funded by: Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology

                Comments

                Comment on this article