Tara Gomes1, David Juurlink2, Zhan Yao3, Ximena Camacho3, J Michael Paterson4, Samantha Singh3, Irfan Dhalla5, Beth Sproule6, Muhammad Mamdani7. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Keenan Research Centre of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ont. ; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. 4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. 5. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. ; Keenan Research Centre of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. 6. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ont. 7. Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. ; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increased use of opioid analgesics, sedative hypnotics and stimulants, coupled with the associated risks of overdose have raised concerns around the inappropriate prescribing of these monitored drugs. We assessed the impact of new legislation, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, and a centralized Narcotics Monitoring System (implemented November 2011 and May 2012, respectively), on the dispensing of prescriptions suggestive of misuse. METHODS: We conducted a time series analysis of publicly funded prescriptions for opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulants dispensed monthly in Ontario from January 2007 to May 2013, based on information in the Ontario Public Drug Benefit Database. In the primary analysis, a prescription was deemed potentially inappropriate if it was dispensed within 7 days of an earlier prescription and was for at least 30 tablets of a drug in the same class as the earlier prescription, but originated from a different physician and a different pharmacy. RESULTS: After enactment of the new legislation, the prevalence of potentially inappropriate opioid prescriptions decreased by 12.5% in 6 months (from 1.6% in October 2011 to 1.4% in April 2012; p = 0.01). No further significant change was observed after the introduction of the narcotic monitoring system (p = 0.8). By May 2013, the prevalence had dropped to 1.0%. Inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing was significantly influenced by both the legislation (p < 0.001) and the monitoring system (p = 0.05), which together reduced potentially inappropriate prescribing by 50.0% between October 2011 and May 2013 (from 0.4% to 0.2%). The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing of stimulants was significantly influenced by the introduction of the monitoring system in May 2012, falling from 0.7% in April 2012 to 0.3% in May 2013 (p = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: For a select group of drugs prone to misuse and diversion, legislation and a prescription monitoring program reduced the prevalence of prescriptions suggestive of misuse. This suggests that regulatory interventions can promote appropriate prescribing which could potentially be applied to other jurisdictions and drugs of concern.
BACKGROUND: The increased use of opioid analgesics, sedative hypnotics and stimulants, coupled with the associated risks of overdose have raised concerns around the inappropriate prescribing of these monitored drugs. We assessed the impact of new legislation, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, and a centralized Narcotics Monitoring System (implemented November 2011 and May 2012, respectively), on the dispensing of prescriptions suggestive of misuse. METHODS: We conducted a time series analysis of publicly funded prescriptions for opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulants dispensed monthly in Ontario from January 2007 to May 2013, based on information in the Ontario Public Drug Benefit Database. In the primary analysis, a prescription was deemed potentially inappropriate if it was dispensed within 7 days of an earlier prescription and was for at least 30 tablets of a drug in the same class as the earlier prescription, but originated from a different physician and a different pharmacy. RESULTS: After enactment of the new legislation, the prevalence of potentially inappropriate opioid prescriptions decreased by 12.5% in 6 months (from 1.6% in October 2011 to 1.4% in April 2012; p = 0.01). No further significant change was observed after the introduction of the narcotic monitoring system (p = 0.8). By May 2013, the prevalence had dropped to 1.0%. Inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing was significantly influenced by both the legislation (p < 0.001) and the monitoring system (p = 0.05), which together reduced potentially inappropriate prescribing by 50.0% between October 2011 and May 2013 (from 0.4% to 0.2%). The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing of stimulants was significantly influenced by the introduction of the monitoring system in May 2012, falling from 0.7% in April 2012 to 0.3% in May 2013 (p = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: For a select group of drugs prone to misuse and diversion, legislation and a prescription monitoring program reduced the prevalence of prescriptions suggestive of misuse. This suggests that regulatory interventions can promote appropriate prescribing which could potentially be applied to other jurisdictions and drugs of concern.
Authors: Traci C Green; Marita R Mann; Sarah E Bowman; Nickolas Zaller; Xaviel Soto; John Gadea; Catherine Cordy; Patrick Kelly; Peter D Friedmann Journal: Pain Med Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Liza M Reifler; Danna Droz; J Elise Bailey; Sidney H Schnoll; Reginald Fant; Richard C Dart; Becki Bucher Bartelson Journal: Pain Med Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Traci C Green; Marita R Mann; Sarah E Bowman; Nickolas Zaller; Xaviel Soto; John Gadea; Catherine Cordy; Patrick Kelly; Peter D Friedmann Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2013 May-Jun
Authors: Mukaila A Raji; Yong-Fang Kuo; Deepak Adhikari; Jacques Baillargeon; James S Goodwin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 2.890