Co-proxamol: where have all the patients gone?

Analgesic switching in chronic users of dextropropoxyphene in France

BACKGROUND

The combination dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol (DXP/P) was the most prescribed opioid analgesic until its withdrawal in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated dispensations of analgesics in chronic users of DXP/P during the 18 months following its withdrawal.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study repeated yearly was conducted by using the French reimbursement database from 2006 to 2015. Chronic DXP/P users were defined as patients who received at least 40 boxes of DXP/P in the year prior to withdrawal. Data on analgesic dispensing were analyzed at DXP/P withdrawal (T0) and then every 6 months for 18 months.

RESULTS

A total of 63 671 subjects had a DXP/P reimbursement in the year prior to its discontinuation, of whom 7.1% were identified as chronic users (mean age: 71.5 years, women: 68.7%). Among the patients taking DXP/P alone at T0 (74.6%), one fourth switched to a peripheral analgesic, one fourth to a combination of peripheral analgesic/opioid, one fourth to another opioid, and the others mainly discontinued their treatment (14.1%) or died. During the following 12 months, most of the subjects taking only peripheral analgesics continued this treatment, while half of the subjects with a combination of opioid/peripheral analgesic or taking only an analgesic remained on this type of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Eighteen months after DXP/P withdrawal, more than 10% of patients stopped taking an analgesic. Vigilance is required regarding any change in analgesics by regularly reassessing patients' pain and, in the case of opioid treatments, by monitoring the risk of use disorders.

Perceptions of French general practitioners and patients regarding dextropropoxyphene withdrawal: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Dextropropoxyphene (DXP), a step 2 analgesic commonly prescribed in France, was withdrawn from the French market in 2011 following a European decision due to its poor risk-benefit ratio. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of French general practitioners (GPs) and patients regarding DXP withdrawal.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on 26 individual semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Rhône-Alpes region of France.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen patients and 13 GPs.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted to collect data concerning the status of DXP, its efficacy and safety, the conditions of DXP's withdrawal and its potential impact. The transcripts were analysed using NVivo software.

RESULTS

DXP was a very popular drug among both patients and GPs. Its withdrawal was a bad experience for patients and many GPs; these misunderstood the reasons for its withdrawal and several contested them. They generally recognised more benefits than risks of DXP and considered alternative drugs unsatisfactory. In the same period, a French court case regarding another drug led to distrust towards the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare institutions, which contributed to the negative feelings reported. However, the experience was positive for the GPs who had been alerted to the poor DXP risk-benefit ratio well before its withdrawal.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from physicians who were previously informed of its poor risk-benefit ratio, DXP withdrawal was not a good experience for patients and GPs. Better anticipation by the health authorities, in terms of pharmacoepidemiological surveillance and communication to healthcare professionals as well as the general public, should provide better acceptance of such a decision in the future.

Use of analgesics in France, following dextropropoxyphene withdrawal

Background

In 2009, the European Medicines Agency recommended withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene (DXP); in March 2011 it was withdrawn from the market in France. Up until that time the combination dextropropoxyphene-paracetamol (DXP/PC) was widely used for analgesia. At withdrawal, French regulators recommended that DXP/PC be replaced by other step 2 analgesics, i.e. tramadol, codeine, or opium-containing drugs, or by PC for a weak level of pain. To investigate prescribing behaviours after DXP/PC withdrawal, dispensations of analgesics before and after withdrawal were analysed.

Methods

Aggregated dispensation data of analgesics prescribed between January 2009 and December 2012 in the Rhône-Alpes region were obtained from the general health insurance claims data; changes in analgesic dispensation over time were analysed with the ATC/DDD methodology. Pre (Jan-June 2009) and post-withdrawal (Jan-June 2012) changes of DDDs where computed for each analgesic step.

Results

The dispensations of DXP/PC experienced a two-step decrease until 2011. Over the withdrawal period 2009-2012, there was a 14% decrease in the overall use of analgesic (from 109 to 94 DDDs), while the use of step 2 analgesics declined by 46% (− 22 DDDs, from 47 to 25 DDDs). This latter decline included a cessation of use of DXP/PC (29 DDDs in 2009) that were only in part (+ 7 DDDs, from 18 to 25 DDDs) compensated by increased use of codeine, tramadol and opium, in monotherapy or combined with PC. For step 1 analgesics, use increased with 9%, mostly PC (+ 8 DDDs, from 31 to 39 DDDs). Step 3 analgesics dispensations remained largely unchanged over this period (around 3 DDDs).

Conclusions

In the Rhône-Alpes region, DXP/PC withdrawal was accompanied in part by an increased use of same level analgesics, and in part by an increased use of PC in monotherapy. The extent of DXP/PC use before withdrawal, and the increased use of PC after DXP withdrawal, underline the complexity of pain management.