Patterns of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use in the era of new non-stimulant medicines: A population-based study among Australian children and adults (2013-2020).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: New therapeutic options such as lisdexamfetamine and guanfacine have recently become available for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We described contemporary patterns of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use among children, adolescents and adults in Australia. METHODS: This population-based study used dispensing data for a 10% random sample of Australian residents between July 2012 and December 2020. We estimated the annual prevalence and incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicines, second-line guanfacine use and examined concurrent medicine use of both stimulants and non-stimulants. We followed incident users for up to 5 years and analysed treatment persistence using a novel proportion of people covered method. Analyses were stratified by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine, sex and age group; young children (0-5 years), children (6-12 years), adolescents (13-17 years), young adults (18-24 years) and adults (⩾25 years). RESULTS: We observed a twofold increase in the overall prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use between 2013 and 2020, from 4.9 to 9.7 per 1000 persons. Incident use also increased across all age groups and both sexes, with the most pronounced increases among adolescent females (from 1.4 to 5.3 per 1000 persons). Stimulant treatment persistence after 5 years was highest among those initiating treatment as young children (64%) and children (69%) and lowest among those initiating treatment in adolescence (19%). Concurrent use of stimulants and non-stimulants was more common among males and younger age groups. Most children (87%) initiating guanfacine had prior dispensings of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicines. CONCLUSION: We observed increasing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medicine use in Australia, especially among young females. Nevertheless, treatment rates remain lower than the estimated prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder across all subpopulations. Poor long-term treatment persistence in adolescence may warrant improved clinical monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in patients transitioning from paediatric to adult care. Reassuringly, use of newly approved guanfacine appeared to be in accordance with guidelines among children.

Understandings, attitudes, practices and responses to GHB overdose among GHB consumers.

BACKGROUND: Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is used at disproportionately high rates within sexuality and gender diverse communities and carries a high risk of overdose. GHB overdose can result in death. Internationally, recent increases in GHB overdoses have been observed. Coronial reviews of GHB-related death highlight the pivotal roles that bystanders to GHB overdose play in preventing fatality. No research has examined, in detail, how bystanders respond to GHB overdose. This qualitative study was conducted among people who use GHB and explored how they responded upon witnessing a GHB overdose experienced by someone else. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 31 sexuality and gender diverse Australian residents reporting three or more occasions of GHB use in the previous 12 months. Participants were asked questions about witnessed GHB overdose, their actions and decision-making processes throughout overdose. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants described witnessing GHB overdose, commonly in private settings involving sexualized GHB use. Variable definitions of GHB overdose were reported, ranging from GHB-induced symptoms of distress to comatose intoxication. Drastic actions to keep someone alert and responsive post-GHB ingestion were reported; these included the administration of stimulant substances and citrus. Decisions to call or not call for emergency medical services (EMS) were influenced by many circumstantial variables. In most instances, an EMS call was resisted and response practices deviated from established first aid protocols. CONCLUSIONS: GHB overdose prevention and response training programs targeting people who use GHB are urgently required. These education interventions ought to address inaccuracies that inform street remedies for GHB overdose, teach people how to safely check breathing and response, promote basic first aid principles and address barriers to contacting EMS.

Choosing wisely? Quantifying the extent of three low value psychotropic prescribing practices in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The global Choosing Wisely campaign has identified the following psychotropic prescribing as low-value (harmful or wasteful): (1) benzodiazepine use in the elderly, (2) antipsychotic use in dementia and (3) prescribing two or more antipsychotics concurrently. We aimed to quantify the extent of these prescribing practices in the Australian population. METHODS: We applied indicators to dispensing claims of a 10% random sample of Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme beneficiaries to quantify annual rates of each low-value practice from 2013 to 2016. We also assessed patient factors and direct medicine costs (extrapolated to the entire Australian population) associated with each practice in 2016. RESULTS: We observed little change in the rates of the three practices between 2013 and 2016. In 2016, 15.3% of people aged ≥65 years were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 0.5% were prescribed antipsychotics in the context of dementia and 0.2% of people aged ≥18 years received two or more antipsychotics concurrently. The likelihood of elderly people receiving benzodiazepines or antipsychotics in the context of dementia increased with age and the likelihood of receiving all three practices increased with comorbidity burden. In 2016, direct medicine costs to the government of all three practices combined, extrapolated to national figures, were > $21 million AUD. CONCLUSIONS: Our indicators suggest that the frequency of these three practices has not changed appreciably in recent years and that they incur significant costs. Worryingly, people with the greatest risk of harm from these prescribing practices are often the most likely to receive them.

Pregabalin prescribing patterns in Australian general practice, 2012-2018: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 pregabalin was subsidised by Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for neuropathic pain. Since the subsidy, pregabalin prescribing has been increasing in Australia and so has related harm. There are concerns it is being prescribed for indications other than neuropathic pain, which have little evidence of efficacy. AIM: To describe pregabalin prescribing in Australian general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional study of patients attending 445 general practice sites in the national MedicineInsight database from March 2012-February 2018. METHOD: The following aspects were calculated: the proportion of prescriptions that were for pregabalin per year; the prevalence of pain conditions in patients prescribed pregabalin; and same-day prescribing of pregabalin with opioids or benzodiazepines. RESULTS: Prescribing increased from 13 per 10 000 to 104 per 10 000 prescriptions between 2012-2013 and 2017-2018. A total of 1 891 623 patients were identified of whom 114 123 (6.0%) were prescribed pregabalin; 49.7% (n = 56 772) had a recorded diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Among people prescribed pregabalin without a recorded diagnosis of neuropathic pain, 43.5% (n = 24 927) had a diagnosis of back problems, 8.8% (n = 5073) chronic pain, and 26.4% (n = 30 146) had no pain diagnosis. Pregabalin was prescribed the same day as an opioid to 38.1% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.1% to 39.1%) and a benzodiazepine to 13.1% of patients (95% CI = 12.5% to 13.7%). Patients with a diagnosis of chronic pain had the highest rate of same-day prescribing of pregabalin with an opioid (70.4%, 95% CI = 68.9% to 71.9%) or a benzodiazepine (25.8%, 95% CI = 24.2% to 27.4%) CONCLUSION: Substantial increases in pregabalin prescribing were identified in Australian general practice, but only half of patients had a neuropathic pain diagnosis recorded, the only approved indication for subsidy. High rates of same-day prescribing with opioids and benzodiazepines may put patients at increased risk of harm.

Patterns of real-world opioid prescribing in Australian general practice (2013-18).

Little is known about private-market opioid prescribing and how Australian opioid policies impact prescribing across public and private markets in Australia. We aimed to investigate publicly subsidised and private-market opioid prescribing from 2013 to 2018. We used prescribing records from MedicineInsight, an Australian primary care database, to examine trends in prescriptions for non-injectable opioid formulations from October 2013 to September 2018. We examined annual opioid prescribing trends overall, by opioid agent, and by market (public and private). We further examined patterns of fentanyl patch prescribing focusing on co-prescribed medicines and use in opioid-naïve patients. Opioids accounted for 8% of all prescriptions over the study period and 468 893 patients were prescribed at least one opioid of interest. Prescribing rates for oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol increased, whereas those for fentanyl patches, morphine and single-agent oxycodone decreased over the study period. Private-market prescribing rates of codeine (schedule 4) increased notably following its up-scheduling to prescription-only status. Among patients prescribed fentanyl patches, 29% were potentially opioid-naïve and 49% were prescribed another opioid on the same day. The private-medicines market is a small but growing component of opioid use in Australia and one way in which prescribers and patients can avoid access restrictions in the public market for these medicines. Although fentanyl patch prescribing declined, there is room for improvement in prescribing fentanyl patches among opioid-naïve patients, and co-prescribing of fentanyl patches with other sedatives.

Measuring 21 low-value hospital procedures: claims analysis of Australian private health insurance data (2010-2014).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence, costs and trends (2010-2014) for 21 low-value inpatient procedures in a privately insured Australian patient cohort. DESIGN: We developed indicators for 21 low-value procedures from evidence-based lists such as Choosing Wisely, and applied them to a claims data set of hospital admissions. We used narrow and broad indicators where multiple low-value procedure definitions exist. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 376 354 patients who claimed for an inpatient service from any of 13 insurance funds in calendar years 2010-2014; approximately 7% of the privately insured Australian population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Counts and proportions of low-value procedures in 2014, and relative change between 2010 and 2014. We also report both the Medicare (Australian government) and the private insurance financial contributions to these low-value admissions. RESULTS: Of the 14 662 patients with admissions for at least 1 of the 21 procedures in 2014, 20.8%-32.0% were low-value using the narrow and broad indicators, respectively. Of the 21 procedures, admissions for knee arthroscopy were highest in both the volume and the proportion that were low-value (1607-2956; 44.4%-81.7%).Seven low-value procedures decreased in use between 2010 and 2014, while admissions for low-value percutaneous coronary interventions and inpatient intravitreal injections increased (51% and 8%, respectively).For this sample, we estimated 2014 Medicare contributions for admissions with low-value procedures to be between $A1.8 and $A2.9 million, and total charges between $A12.4 and $A22.7 million. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian federal government is currently reviewing low-value healthcare covered by Medicare and private health insurers. Estimates from this study can provide crucial baseline data and inform design and assessment of policy strategies within the Australian private healthcare sector aimed at curtailing the high volume and/or proportions of low-value procedures.