Consumption of psychotropic drugs in Croatia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a 10-year longitudinal study (2012-2021)

PURPOSE

This longitudinal study aimed to examine the trends in antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics/sedatives consumption in Croatia over a 10-year period (2012-2021). The study also assessed whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the yearly consumption of psychotropic drugs.

METHODS

Data were collected from Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (HALMED) and presented as defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DDD/TID). The consumption before (2012-2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) was compared with interrupted time series analysis.

RESULTS

There was an increase in total consumption of analyzed psychotropic drugs in Croatia between the years 2012 and 2021, from 115.47 DDD/TID in 2012 to 155.50 DDD/TID in 2021. An increasing trend was observed in the consumption of all 4 analyzed groups of medicines (antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants). Anxiolytics accounted for 59% (68.29/115.47 DDD/TID), and hypnotics and sedatives for 8.5% (9.76/115.47 DDD/TID) of total consumption in 2012. At the end of a 10-year period, hypnotics and sedatives represented 12% (19.05/155.50 DDD/TID) and anxiolytics 54% (83.53/155.50 DDD/TID) of psychotropic drugs consumption. The total consumption of psychotropic drugs was not significantly different before and during COVID-19 pandemic (estimate ± standard error = 5.029 ± 6.899, t = 0.729, P = 0.490).

CONCLUSION

Croatia had a high, continuously increasing consumption of psychotropic drugs. National anxiolytics consumption was one of the highest globally, while consumption of antidepressants was rather low compared to other high-income countries. The COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to influence the yearly utilization of psychotropic drugs in Croatia.

Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain

Aim: We analyzed characteristics and completion status of Systematic Reviews (SRs) about regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain relief registered in PROSPERO. Materials & methods: PROSPERO was searched on 5 January 2022. Characteristics of PROSPERO records, completion status and publication information were extracted. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched by 31 May 2022, for additional published SRs. The inconsistency of PROSPERO records' status was analyzed by comparing the most recent PROSPERO status with subsequent publication of completed SR. Time-to-publication was calculated. Results: Almost half of 174 included PROSPERO records (49%) were registered in 2021. A median of 3 (IQR: 2-4.75) authors, and a search of 4 information sources (IQR: 3-5) was planned. At first registration, 51 (29%) records had already started or completed formal screening. PROSPERO records included mostly adults (48%) undergoing trunk blocks (56%), with pain intensity (74%) as a main outcome. 147 (84%) PROSPERO records had a status "ongoing". Yet, 71 (41%) PROSPERO records were completed SRs, published after a median of 291 days. Inconsistency in status was found in 34% of PROSPERO records. Conclusion: Despite an increase in PROSPERO registrations about regional anesthesia, most were not published, and a third had inaccurate status.

Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Radiofrequency as a Method of Dorsal Root Ganglia Stimulation in Patients with Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a nonablative pain treatment that uses radiofrequency current in short high-voltage bursts, resulting in interruption of nociceptive afferent pathways. We conducted a systematic review with the aim to create a synthesis of evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF applied to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO through January 8, 2019, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the clinical trial register of the World Health Organization. All study designs were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We assessed level of evidence using the Oxford tool and quality of evidence with GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies with participants suffering from lumbosacral, cervical, or thoracic radicular pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, neuropathicbone pain in cancer patients, or carpal tunnel syndrome. Only five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while others were of nonrandomized designs, predominantly before and after comparisons. A total of 991 participants were included, with a median number (range) of 31 (1-101) participants. Only 204 participants were included in the RCTs, with a median number (range) of 38 (23-62) participants. The overall quality of evidence was low, as the majority of the included studies were rated as evidence level 4 or 5. The quality of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain is based mainly on results from very small studies with low evidence quality. Current research results about the benefits of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain should be considered preliminary and confirmed in high-quality RCTs with sufficient numbers of participants.

Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency as a method of dorsal root ganglia stimulation for treatment of non-neuropathic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the efficacy and safety of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) targeted pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) versus any comparator for treatment of non-neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO clinical trial register until January 8, 2019. All study designs were eligible. Two authors independently conducted literature screening. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were any other pain-related outcome and any other safety outcome that was reported. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We conducted narrative evidence synthesis and assessed the conclusiveness of included studies regarding efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 599 participants, which analyzed various pain syndromes. Two studies were randomized controlled trials; both included participants with low back pain (LBP). Non-randomized studies included patients with the following indications: LBP, postsurgical pain, pain associated with herpes zoster, cervicogenic headache, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, intractable vertebral metastatic pain, chronic scrotal and inguinal pain, occipital radiating pain in rheumatoid arthritis and chronic migraine. In these studies, the PRF was usually initiated after other treatments have failed. Eleven studies had positive conclusive statements (11/17) about efficacy; the remaining had positive inconclusive statements. Only three studies provided conclusiveness of evidence statements regarding safety - two indicated that the evidence was positive conclusive, and one positive inconclusive. The risk of bias was predominantly unclear in randomized and serious in non-randomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Poor quality and few participants characterize evidence about benefits and harms of DRG PRF in patients with non-neuropathic pain. Results from available studies should only be considered preliminary. Not all studies have reported data regarding the safety of the intervention, but those that did, indicate that the intervention is relatively safe. As the procedure is non-destructive and early results are promising, further comparative studies about PRF in non-neuropathic pain syndromes would be welcomed.

Neuromodulation with electrical field stimulation of dorsal root ganglion in various pain syndromes: a systematic review with focus on participant selection

Objective

We conducted a systematic review about patient selection, efficacy, and safety of neuromodulation with electrical field stimulation (EFS) of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) in various painful conditions. We also analyzed conclusion statements as well as conflict of interest and financing of the included studies.

Methods

All study designs were eligible for inclusion. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and clinical trial registries until September 7, 2018. We assessed risk of bias by using Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

Among the 29 included studies, only one was RCT, majority being case series and case reports. The evidence is based on studies with small number of participants (median: 6, range 1–152) with various painful conditions. Neuromodulation with EFS of DRG was mostly performed in participants who have failed other treatment modalities. Most of the authors of the included studies reported positive, but inconclusive, evidence regarding efficacy of neuro-modulation with EFS of DRG. Meta-analysis was not possible since only one RCT was included.

Conclusion

Available evidence suggest that neuromodulation with EFS of DRG may help highly selected participants with various pain syndromes, who have failed to achieve adequate pain relief with other pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. However, these findings should be confirmed in high-quality RCTs with sufficient numbers of participants.