Twenty-five years of prescription opioid use in Australia: a whole-of-population analysis using pharmaceutical claims

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

<div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="bcp12937-sec-0001">  </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1068353e229">Aim</h5> <p id="d1068353e231">The aim of this paper is to investigate 25‐year trends in community use of prescribed opioid analgesics in Australia, and to map these trends against major changes to opioid registration and subsidy. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="bcp12937-sec-0002">  </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1068353e234">Methods</h5> <p id="d1068353e236">We obtained dispensing data from 1990 to 2014 from two sources: dispensing claims processed under Australia's national drug subsidy programme, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including under co‐payment records from 2012; and estimates of non‐subsidized medicine use from a survey of Australian pharmacies (until 2011). Utilization was expressed in defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 population/day. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="bcp12937-sec-0003">  </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1068353e239">Results</h5> <p id="d1068353e241">Opioid dispensing increased almost four‐fold between 1990 and 2014, from 4.6 to 17.4 DDD/1000 pop/day. In 1990, weak, short‐acting or orally administered opioids accounted for over 90% of utilization. Use of long‐acting opioids increased over 17‐fold between 1990 and 2000, due primarily to the subsidy of long‐acting morphine and increased use of methadone for pain management. Between 2000 and 2011, oxycodone, fentanyl, buprenorphine, tramadol and hydromorphone use increased markedly. Use of strong opioids, long‐acting and transdermal preparations also increased, largely following the subsidy of various opioids for noncancer pain. In 2011, the most dispensed opioids were codeine (41.1% of total opioid use), oxycodone (19.7%) and tramadol (16.1%); long‐acting formulations comprised approximately half, and strong opioids 40%, of opioid dispensing. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="bcp12937-sec-0004">  </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d1068353e244">Conclusions</h5> <p id="d1068353e246">Opioid utilization in Australia is increasing, although these figures remain below levels reported in the US and Canada. The increased use of opioids was largely driven by the subsidy of long‐acting formulations and opioids for the treatment of noncancer pain. </p> </div>

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC.

Augusto Caraceni, Geoffrey Hanks, Stein Kaasa … (2012)

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 317 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects.

Andrea D Furlan, Juan Sandoval, Angela Mailis-Gagnon … (2006)

Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a major health problem, for which opioids provide one treatment option. However, evidence is needed about side effects, efficacy, and risk of misuse or addiction. This meta-analysis was carried out with these objectives: to compare the efficacy of opioids for CNCP with other drugs and placebo; to identify types of CNCP that respond better to opioids; and to determine the most common side effects of opioids. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (up to May 2005) and reference lists for randomized controlled trials of any opioid administered by oral or transdermal routes or rectal suppositories for CNCP (defined as pain for longer than 6 mo). Extracted outcomes included pain, function or side effects. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad instrument; analyses were conducted with Revman 4.2.7. Included were 41 randomized trials involving 6019 patients: 80% of the patients had nociceptive pain (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or back pain); 12%, neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy or phantom limb pain); 7%, fibromyalgia; and 1%, mixed pain. The methodological quality of 87% of the studies was high. The opioids studied were classified as weak (tramadol, propoxyphene, codeine) or strong (morphine, oxycodone). Average duration of treatment was 5 (range 1-16) weeks. Dropout rates averaged 33% in the opioid groups and 38% in the placebo groups. Opioids were more effective than placebo for both pain and functional outcomes in patients with nociceptive or neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Strong, but not weak, opioids were significantly superior to naproxen and nortriptyline, and only for pain relief. Among the side effects of opioids, only constipation and nausea were clinically and statistically significant. Weak and strong opioids outperformed placebo for pain and function in all types of CNCP. Other drugs produced better functional outcomes than opioids, whereas for pain relief they were outperformed only by strong opioids. Despite the relative shortness of the trials, more than one-third of the participants abandoned treatment.

0 comments Cited 200 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain in Europe: narrative review of prevalence, pain treatments and pain impact.

Kim J. Reid, Julie Harker, Malgorzata Bala … (2011)

Estimates on the epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain vary widely throughout Europe. It is unclear whether this variation reflects true population differences or methodological factors. Such epidemiological information supports European decision makers in allocating healthcare resources. Pan-Europe epidemiological data about chronic non-cancer pain was obtained using systematic review principles in searching and summarising results. Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CRD Databases, and GIN) were systematically searched for primary studies containing epidemiological data on chronic non-cancer pain in Europe excluding studies that solely concerned migraines, headaches and pain associated with specific disease conditions. The studies were prioritised according to quality, recency and validity. Eighteen research questions concerning aspects of chronic pain included: prevalence; incidence; pain treatments, control and compliance; treatment satisfaction; and quality of life and economic impacts. The search yielded 16 619 references and 45 were relevant to Europe. Studies for each question were selected that provided the most recent, representative and valid data. There was a clear lack of studies concerning chronic non-cancer pain in Europe as a whole. The 1-month prevalence of moderate-to-severe non-cancer chronic pain was 19%. Chronic pain significantly impacted on patient-perceived health status, affected everyday activities including economic pursuits and personal relationships, and was significantly associated with depressive symptoms. The majority relied on drugs for pain control and NSAIDs were the most frequent drug choice. Despite pain medications, a large proportion had inadequate pain control. To the authors' knowledge this is the most comprehensive literature review on epidemiological data in this field. It is clear that chronic pain has a dramatic impact on European society. Since chronic non-cancer pain is treated differently from cancer-related pain, the lack of data in this area clearly underlines the need for decision makers in healthcare to gather further epidemiological data.