Emilie Gladstone1, Kate Smolina1, Steven G Morgan1, Kimberly A Fernandes1, Diana Martins1, Tara Gomes2. 1. School of Population and Public Health (Gladstone, Smolina, Morgan), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Fernandes, Martins, Gomes); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. 2. School of Population and Public Health (Gladstone, Smolina, Morgan), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Fernandes, Martins, Gomes); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. gomest@smh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive systems for surveilling prescription opioid-related harms provide clear evidence that deaths from prescription opioids have increased dramatically in the United States. However, these harms are not systematically monitored in Canada. In light of a growing public health crisis, accessible, nationwide data sources to examine prescription opioid-related harms in Canada are needed. We sought to examine the performance of 5 algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics data against data abstracted from the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario as a gold standard. METHODS: We identified all prescription opioid-related deaths from Ontario coroners' data that occurred between Jan. 31, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2010. We then used 5 different algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics death data in 2010. We selected the algorithm with the highest sensitivity and a positive predictive value of more than 80% as the optimal algorithm for identifying prescription opioid-related deaths. RESULTS: Four of the 5 algorithms had positive predictive values of more than 80%. The algorithm with the highest sensitivity (75%) in 2010 improved slightly in its predictive performance from 2003 to 2010. INTERPRETATION: In the absence of specific systems for monitoring prescription opioid-related deaths in Canada, readily available national vital statistics data can be used to study prescription opioid-related mortality with considerable accuracy. Despite some limitations, these data may facilitate the implementation of national surveillance and monitoring strategies.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive systems for surveilling prescription opioid-related harms provide clear evidence that deaths from prescription opioids have increased dramatically in the United States. However, these harms are not systematically monitored in Canada. In light of a growing public health crisis, accessible, nationwide data sources to examine prescription opioid-related harms in Canada are needed. We sought to examine the performance of 5 algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics data against data abstracted from the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario as a gold standard. METHODS: We identified all prescription opioid-related deaths from Ontario coroners' data that occurred between Jan. 31, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2010. We then used 5 different algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics death data in 2010. We selected the algorithm with the highest sensitivity and a positive predictive value of more than 80% as the optimal algorithm for identifying prescription opioid-related deaths. RESULTS: Four of the 5 algorithms had positive predictive values of more than 80%. The algorithm with the highest sensitivity (75%) in 2010 improved slightly in its predictive performance from 2003 to 2010. INTERPRETATION: In the absence of specific systems for monitoring prescription opioid-related deaths in Canada, readily available national vital statistics data can be used to study prescription opioid-related mortality with considerable accuracy. Despite some limitations, these data may facilitate the implementation of national surveillance and monitoring strategies.
Authors: Irfan A Dhalla; Muhammad M Mamdani; Marco L A Sivilotti; Alex Kopp; Omar Qureshi; David N Juurlink Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-12-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Theodore J Cicero; Richard C Dart; James A Inciardi; George E Woody; Sidney Schnoll; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Pain Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Keith Humphreys; Chelsea L Shover; Christina M Andrews; Amy S B Bohnert; Margaret L Brandeau; Jonathan P Caulkins; Jonathan H Chen; Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; Yasmin L Hurd; David N Juurlink; Howard K Koh; Erin E Krebs; Anna Lembke; Sean C Mackey; Lisa Larrimore Ouellette; Brian Suffoletto; Christine Timko Journal: Lancet Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Aaron M Orkin; Chun Zhan; Jason E Buick; Ian R Drennan; Michelle Klaiman; Pamela Leece; Laurie J Morrison Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Melanie Jaeger; Greg W Hosier; Thomas McGregor; Darren Beiko; Sarah Medina Kasasni; Christopher M Booth; Marlo Whitehead; D Robert Siemens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tara Gomes; David N Juurlink; Tony Antoniou; Muhammad M Mamdani; J Michael Paterson; Wim van den Brink Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 11.069