Psychotropic and other medicine use at time of death by suicide: a population-level analysis of linked dispensing and forensic toxicology data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the numbers and types of medicines dispensed around the time of death to people who die by suicide; to compare the medicines recently dispensed and those recorded in post mortem toxicology reports. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of linked National Coronial Information System (NCIS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data from the Australian Suicide Prevention using Health Linked Data (ASHLi) study, a population-based case series study of closed coronial cases for deaths of people in Australia aged ten years or more during 1 July 2013 - 10 October 2019 deemed by coroners to be the result of intentional self-harm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of people to whom medicines were dispensed around the time of death, by medicine group, class, and specific medicine; comparison of medicines recently dispensed and those detected by post mortem toxicology. RESULTS: Toxicology reports were available for 13 541 of 14 206 people who died by suicide (95.3%; 10 246 men, 75.7%); poisoning with medicines contributed to 1163 deaths (8.6%). At least one PBS-subsidised medicine had been dispensed around the time of death to 7998 people (59.1%). For three medicine classes, the proportions of people in whom the medicines were detected post mortem and their death was deemed medicine-related were larger for those without records of recent dispensing than for people for whom they had been dispensed around the time of death: antidepressants (17.7% v 12.0%), anxiolytics (16.3% v 14.8%), and sedatives/hypnotics (24.3% v 16.5%). At least one recently dispensed medicine not detected post mortem was identified for 6208 people (45.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of people who died by suicide were not taking psychotropic medicines recently dispensed to them, suggesting non-adherence to pharmacotherapy, and a smaller than expected proportion were using antidepressants. Conversely, medicines that had not recently been dispensed were detected post mortem in many people for whom poisoning with medicines was a contributing factor, suggesting medicine stockpiling.

Benzodiazepine Use in Older Adults in the United States, Ontario, and Australia from 2010 to 2016.

OBJECTIVES: To detail annual trends in benzodiazepine incidence and prevalence in older adults between 2010 and 2016 in three countries. DESIGN: Observational multicountry cohort study with harmonized study protocol. SETTING: The United States (veteran population); Ontario, Canada; and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: All people aged 65 and older (8,270,000 people). MEASUREMENTS: Annual incidence and prevalence of benzodiazepine use stratified according to age group (65-74, 75-84, ≥85) and sex. We performed multiple regression analyses to assess whether rates of incident and prevalent use changed significantly over time. RESULTS: Over the study period, we observed a significant decrease in incident benzodiazepine use in the United States (2.6% to 1.7%) and Ontario (6.0% to 4.4%) but not Australia (7.0% to 6.7%). We found significant declines in prevalent use in all countries (United States: 9.2% to 7.3%; Ontario: 18.2% to 13.4%; Australia: 20.2% to 16.8%). Although incidence and prevalence increased with age in Ontario and Australia, they decreased with age in the United States. Incidence and prevalence were higher in women in all countries. CONCLUSION: Consistent with other international studies, there have been small but significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of benzodiazepine use in older adults in all three countries, with the exception of incidence in Australia, although use remains inappropriately high-particularly in those aged 85 and older-which warrants further attention from clinicians and policy-makers.

Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: There are a variety of methods for priority setting in health research but few studies have addressed how to prioritise the gaps that exist between research evidence and clinical practice. This study aimed to build a suite of robust, evidence based techniques and tools for use in implementation science projects. We applied the priority setting methodology in lung cancer care as an example. METHODS: We reviewed existing techniques and tools for priority setting in health research and the criteria used to prioritise items. An expert interdisciplinary consensus group comprised of health service, cancer and nursing researchers iteratively reviewed and adapted the techniques and tools. We tested these on evidence-practice gaps identified for lung cancer. The tools were pilot tested and finalised. A brief process evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: We based our priority setting on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The adapted tools included a matrix for individuals to privately rate priority gaps; the same matrix was used for group discussion and reaching consensus. An investment exercise was used to validate allocation of priorities across the gaps. We describe the NGT process, criteria and tool adaptations and process evaluation results. CONCLUSIONS: The modified NGT process, criteria and tools contribute to building a suite of methods that can be applied in prioritising evidence-practice gaps. These methods could be adapted for other health settings within the broader context of implementation science projects.

Changes in anticonvulsant prescribing for Australian children: implications for Quality Use of Medicines.

AIMS: The evidence-base guiding choices between newer versus established anticonvulsants in children is limited. Inappropriate use exposes children to potentially ineffective and/or harmful medicines. Our objective is to describe recent anticonvulsant prescribing patterns in the Australian paediatric population, evaluating overall trends and extent of off-label prescribing of newer agents. METHODS: Aggregated national data on 15 anticonvulsants with Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidy dispensed by community pharmacies for children aged <16 years were obtained from the Drug Utilisation Subcommittee, which is part of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. We analysed trends for the five most prescribed anticonvulsants dispensed between 2002 and 2009 and off-label prescribing for agents where approved Australian product information stipulates a minimum age. RESULTS: Valproate was the most frequently prescribed anticonvulsant with no marked change in prescription numbers per 1000 children aged 0-16 years (11.3-11.8 prescriptions/year). Lamotrigine was the most frequently prescribed newer anticonvulsant (7.9-9.3 prescriptions/year). Carbamazepine prescriptions decreased by 38% and topiramate prescriptions increased by 19% over the 7-year study period; 3.6% of topiramate prescriptions were off-label (by age) for children aged <2 years. Since Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing in 2003, levetiracetam prescriptions increased steeply to 2.5 prescriptions/year per 1000 children in 2009; 4.2% were off-label for children aged <4 years. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial reduction in carbamazepine use and corresponding increase in newer anticonvulsant prescribing, including off-label uses, raises questions about potentially suboptimal Quality Use of Medicines. Such major changes in prescribing may have important clinical and economic consequences. Further study to better understand paediatric prescribing choices and outcomes is needed.