Prescribing antidepressants and benzodiazepines in the Netherlands: is chronic physical illness involved?

Global trends in the consumption of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs in 67 countries and regions from 2008 to 2018: a sales data analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the trends in the consumption of benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-drugs at global, regional, and national levels from 2008 to 2018, across 67 countries and regions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study investigated the consumption of BZDs and Z-drugs analyzed by global pharmaceutical sales data from the IQVIA-Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System database between 2008 and 2018. Consumption was measured in defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day (DDD/TID). The global, regional, and national trends were estimated using linear mixed models. Additional analyses were conducted by grouping countries by income level. The association between consumption and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the prevalence of different medical conditions was explored in univariable linear models.

RESULTS

BZD consumption decreased annually by -1.88% (95% CI: -2.27%, -1.48%), and Z-drugs increased by + 3.28% (+2.55%, +4.01%). In 2008, the top ten countries for BZD and Z-drug consumption were all European, ranging from 63.69 to 128.24 DDD/TID. Very low levels were found in Russia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, French West Africa, and the Philippines, with DDD/TID < 1. The consumption in high-income countries was much higher than in middle-income countries. The results showed that increased consumption of BZDs and Z-drugs was statistically associated (p < 0.05) with higher GDP and increased prevalence of anxiety, self-harm, neurological disorders, chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct differences in consumption and trends of BZDs and Z-drugs were found across different countries and regions. Further exploration is needed to understand the association and safety of the use of BZDs and Z-drugs in patients with comorbidities.

Trends in benzodiazepine and alternative hypnotic use in relation with multimorbidity among older adults in Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines and other hypnotic alternatives are associated with increased risks of adverse events. Heightened awareness of risks may have changed prescribing habits over the years. However, these trends are not fully described, especially in vulnerable people such as multimorbid older adults.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the annual prevalence of benzodiazepine and other hypnotic use in relation to multimorbidity among older adults in the province of Quebec, Canada, from 2000 to 2016.

METHOD

We conducted a population-based study using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. We included all individuals aged ≥66 years covered by the public drug plan. For each year, we evaluated the sex- and age-standardized proportion of benzodiazepine and other hypnotic users, defined as individuals with at least one drug claim in the year. We stratified our results according to multimorbidity and used log-binomial regression to study trends.

RESULTS

The proportion of individuals using benzodiazepines decreased from 34.8% in 2000 to 24.8% in 2016 (p for trend <0.001). Multimorbid people (≥2 chronic diseases) remained the highest users over the years, with 43.3% and 30.6% of them being users in 2000 and 2016, respectively. Conversely, the proportion of users increased for other hypnotics, particularly for trazodone and quetiapine, rising from 5.4% to 8.4% (p < 0.001), and especially among multimorbid individuals (from 7.4% to 11.6%).

CONCLUSION

Older adults used benzodiazepines less frequently but quetiapine and trazodone more frequently in recent years. The use of these medications, particularly in multimorbid people at risk of adverse events, must be addressed.

Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated to Prescription of Benzodiazepines and its Patterns in a Cohort of Patients from Mental Health: A Real World Study in Spain

PURPOSE

we aimed 1) to evaluate the risk factors associated to the benzodiazepines intake; 2) to assess the impact about the use of long acting injectables antipsychotics (LAIs); 3) to assess the risk in severe and affective disorders and 4) to identify the prescription patterns of use in mental health in a cohort of patients from Spain.

METHODS

735 outpatients from Mental Health were included. Demographic and clinical data were collected. In order to compare the use of benzodiazepines we calculated the daily dose equivalents (mg/day) to diazepam as standard.

RESULTS

The most commonly prescribed benzodiazepine was clonazepam (33%) and the mean daily dose of diazepam equivalents was 24.9 mg. It was higher in affective disorders (40.35 ± 3.36) and lower in patients using LAIs antipsychotics (17.50 ± 1.39; p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that to be women (OR = 1.559, 95% CI = 1.059-2.295, p = 0.024), the use of drugs (OR = 1.671, 95% CI = 1.127-2.477, p = 0.011) and suffering any affective disorder (OR = 1.542, 95% CI = 1.355-1.826, p = 0.040) increased the risk of benzodiazepine intake. In contrast, the use of LAIs antipsychotics significantly reduced it versus oral antipsychotics (OR = 5.226, 95% CI = 3.185-8.575, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

benzodiazepines are widely prescribed, mainly clonazepam followed by lorazepam and diazepam. Most of patients used at least one benzodiazepine and the mean daily intake was 25 mg diazepam equivalents. Therefore, benzodiazepines are extensively prescribed and used at higher doses than desirable. These, findings could be useful for clinicians and their practice.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines: Definitions, prevalence and usage patterns – a systematic review of register-based studies

Background

Numerous treatment guidelines recommend that long-term use of benzodiazepines (BZD) should be avoided primarily due to development of tolerance and a risk for BZD dependence. Despite this, long-term BZD use remains a controversial subject in clinical patient care with “for and against” debates. However, there is no explicit understanding of what is meant by long-term BZD use in real world. The aim of this study was to assess different definitions, usage patterns, prevalence and other characteristics of long-term BZD use based on published register-based studies. Synthesis of these characteristics is essential to derive a meaningful definition of long-term BZD.

Methods

Systematic review of register-based studies on long-term BZD use published in 1994–2014.

Results

Fourty-one studies met our predetermined inclusion criteria. The length of BZD use defined as “long-term” varied in these studies ranging from one month to several years. The most common definition was six months or longer during a year. The prevalence of long-term BZD use in the general population was estimated to be about 3%. The relative proportion of long-term BZD users (all definitions) in adult BZD users ranged from 6% to 76% (mean 24%; 95% CL 13–36%). The estimates were higher in studies only on the elderly (47%; 95% CL 31–64%). Long-term use involved typically steady treatment with low BZD doses. However, in elderly patients long-term BZD use and exceeding recommended doses was relatively common. Several characteristics associated with long-term use were found.

Conclusions

Long-term BZD use is common and a clinical reality. Uniform definitions for “long-term”, which is in line with population-based evidence, is needed to have more comparable results between studies. Our systematic review suggests that duration of BZD treatment over six months, the most common definition for long-term BZD use in the included studies. As also recommended previously, it is a useful starting point for further analyses on disadvantages but also potential advantages associated with long-term BZD use.

Integrating nurse-led Self-Management Support (SMS) in routine primary care: design of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study among type 2 diabetes patients with problems of daily functioning and emotional distress: a study protocol

Background

Psychosocial problems are more prevalent among patients with chronic diseases than among the general population. They may lead to a downward spiral of poor adherence, deterioration of the condition and decline in daily functioning. In addition to medical management, systematic attention to emotional and role management tasks during routine chronic care seems mandatory. We intend to integrate an existing nurse-led minimal psychological intervention to support patients’ self-management, which appeared to be effective and cost-effective, in routine care by primary care nurses, so we adjusted it to fit the host setting. The resulting Self-Management Support (SMS) programme involves early detection of patients with emotional distress and problems of daily functioning, as well as self-management support through problem solving and reattribution techniques. Strategies to embed SMS in daily practice include training and booster sessions for practice nurses as well as organisational and financial arrangements. This study aims to simultaneously evaluate the implementation process and effects of SMS in routine care, using a hybrid effectiveness–implementation design.

Methods/Design

Registration data, questionnaires and interviews will be used to explore the facilitators, barriers and costs regarding successful implementation of SMS. The effects of SMS will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with a baseline measurement and follow-up measurements after 4 and 12 months. The population will consist of 46 practice nurses and their type 2 diabetes patients (N = 460; 10 per practice nurse). The practice nurses will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Practice nurses of the intervention group will receive SMS training. Patients for the intervention and control groups will be recruited by a researcher-led self-administered screening procedure to decide which patients of those scheduled for routine consultation are likely to be detected by the practice nurses as eligible for the self-management support. Primary outcome measure is patients’ daily functioning. Secondary measures include emotional well-being, participation, autonomy and control over the disease.

Discussion

Our hybrid study design is complicated by the detection method used by the practice nurses. This method is an implementation issue in itself that has consequences for the realisation and power of the effect evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, NTR2764

The ideal of biopsychosocial chronic care: how to make it real? A qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders

Background

Chronically ill patients often experience psychosocial problems in everyday life. A biopsychosocial approach is considered to be essential in chronic care. In Dutch primary health care the current biomedically oriented clinical practice may conflict with the biopsychosocial approach. This study is aimed to explore the views of Dutch stakeholders on achieving a biopsychosocial approach to the care of patients with chronic diseases.

Methods

In a qualitative explorative study design, we held semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, face-to-face or by telephone. Data were analysed using content analysis. Thirty representatives of Dutch patients with chronic illnesses, primary care professionals, policy makers, health inspectorate, health insurers, educational institutes and researchers were interviewed.

Results

Stakeholders were aware that a systematic biopsychosocial care approach is lacking in current practice. Opportunities for effective change are multidimensional. Achieving a biopsychosocial approach to care relates to active patient participation, the training of professionals, high-quality guidelines, protocols and tools, integrated primary care, research and financial issues.

Conclusions

Although the principles and importance of the biopsychosocial model have been recognized, the provision of care that starts from the medical, emotional or social needs of individual patients does not fit in easily with the current Dutch health care system. All parties involved need to make a commitment to realize the ideal of biopsychosocial chronic care. Together they need to equip health professionals with skills to understand patients' multifaceted needs and to reward integrated biopsychosocial care. Patients need to be empowered to be active partners in their own care.