Opioid-related deaths between 2019 and 2021 across 9 Canadian provinces and territories.

BACKGROUND: The drug toxicity crisis continues to accelerate across Canada, with rapid increases in opioid-related harms following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe trends in the burden of opioid-related deaths across Canada throughout the pandemic, comparing these trends by province or territory, age, and sex. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of accidental opioid-related deaths between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2021, across 9 Canadian provinces and territories using aggregated national data. Our primary measure was the burden of premature opioid-related death, measured by potential years of life lost. Our secondary measure was the proportion of all deaths attributable to opioids; we used the Cochrane-Armitage test for trend to compare proportions. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021, the annual number of opioid-related deaths increased from 3007 to 6222 and years of life lost increased from 126 115 to 256 336 (from 3.5 to 7.0 yr of life lost per 1000 population). In 2021, the highest number of years of life lost was among males (181 525 yr) and people aged 30-39 years (87 045 yr). In 2019, we found that 1.7% of all deaths among those younger than 85 years were related to opioids, rising to 3.2% in 2021. Significant increases in the proportion of deaths related to opioids were observed across all age groups (p < 0.001), representing 29.3% and 29.0% of deaths among people aged 20-29 and 30-39 years in 2021, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Across Canada, the burden of premature opioid-related deaths doubled between 2019 and 2021, representing more than one-quarter of deaths among younger adults. The disproportionate loss of life in this demographic group highlights the critical need for targeted prevention efforts.

Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Patterns of publicly funded naltrexone use among patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder in Ontario.

AIMS: Naltrexone is recommended first-line to manage alcohol use disorder (AUD). With previous studies indicating poor retention on naltrexone, we determined duration of naltrexone use and assessed the association between prescription setting and time to discontinuation in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study among Ontario public drug beneficiaries diagnosed with AUD who initiated publicly funded naltrexone from June 2018 to September 2019. The primary outcome was time to naltrexone discontinuation, with a secondary analysis assessing receipt of at least one prescription refill. We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression to test the association between prescription setting and each medication persistence outcome. RESULTS: Among 2531 new naltrexone patients with AUD, the median duration of naltrexone use was 31 days and 394 (15.6%) continued naltrexone for 6 months or longer. There was no association between setting of initiation and duration of naltrexone use; however, those initiating naltrexone following an acute inpatient hospital stay were more likely to fill a second prescription (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 0.96-2.14), while those initiating after an ED visit were less likely to be dispensed a second prescription (aOR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90) compared to those starting in a physician's office. CONCLUSION: Persistence on naltrexone to treat an AUD is low, regardless of the setting of initiation. Further research is needed to elucidate the barriers encountered by patients with AUD that lead to poor treatment persistence in order to develop interventions that facilitate patient-centered access to evidence-based treatment for AUD in the province.

Examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on homecare services among individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive repeated-cross sectional retrospective longitudinal cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on homecare services in individuals with traumatic or non-traumatic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). SETTING: Health administrative database in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study using linked health administrative databases from March 2015 to June 2022. Monthly homecare utilization was assessed in 3381 adults with SCI using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models. RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic levels, between March 2020 to June 2022, the traumatic group experienced a decrease in personal and/or homemaking services, as well as an increase in nursing visits from April 2020-March 2022 and June 2022. Case management increased at various times for the traumatic group, however therapies decreased in May 2020 only. The non-traumatic group experienced a decrease in personal and/or homemaking services in July 2020, as well as an increase in nursing visits from March 2020 to February 2021 and sporadically throughout 2020. Case management also increased at certain points for the non-traumatic group, but therapies decreased in April 2020, July 2020, and September 2021. CONCLUSION: The traumatic group had decreases in personal and/or homemaking services. Both groups had increases in nursing services, increases in case management, and minimal decreases in therapies at varying times during the pandemic. Investigation is warranted to understand the root cause of these changes, and if they resulted in adverse outcomes.

Brief Report: A population-based study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on benzodiazepine use among children and young adults.

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increases in the prevalence of depression and anxiety among children and young adults. We studied whether the pandemic was associated with changes in prescription benzodiazepine use. We conducted a population-based study of benzodiazepine dispensing to children and young adults ≤ 24 years old between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2022. We used structural break analyses to identify the pandemic month(s) when changes in prescription benzodiazepine dispensing occurred, and interrupted time series models to quantify changes in dispensing following the structural break and compare observed and expected benzodiazepine use. A structural break occurs where there is a sudden change in the trend of a time series. We observed an immediate decline in benzodiazepine dispensing of 23.6 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -33.6 to -21.2) associated with a structural break in April 2020, followed by a monthly decrease in the trend of 0.3 per 100,000 (95% CI: -0.74 to 0.14). Lower than expected benzodiazepine dispensing rates were observed each month of the pandemic from April 2020 onward, with relative percent differences ranging from - 7.4% (95% CI: -10.1% to - 4.7%) to -20.9% (95% CI: -23.2% to -18.6%). Results were generally similar in analyses stratified by sex, age, neighbourhood income quintile, and urban versus rural residence. Further research is required to understand the clinical implications of these findings and whether these trends were sustained with further follow-up.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on prescription stimulant use among children and youth: a population-based study.

COVID-19 associated public health measures and school closures exacerbated symptoms in some children and youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Less well understood is how the pandemic influenced patterns of prescription stimulant use. We conducted a population-based study of stimulant dispensing to children and youth ≤ 24 years old between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2022. We used structural break analyses to identify the pandemic month(s) when changes in the dispensing of stimulants occurred. We used interrupted time series models to quantify changes in dispensing following the structural break and compare observed and expected stimulant use. Our main outcome was the change in the monthly rate of stimulant use per 100,000 children and youth. Following an initial immediate decline of 60.1 individuals per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 99.0 to - 21.2), the monthly rate of stimulant dispensing increased by 11.8 individuals per 100,000 (95% CI 10.0-13.6), with the greatest increases in trend observed among females, individuals in the highest income neighbourhoods, and those aged 20 to 24. Observed rates were between 3.9% (95% CI 1.7-6.2%) and 36.9% (95% CI 34.3-39.5%) higher than predicted among females from June 2020 onward and between 7.1% (95% CI 4.2-10.0%) and 50.7% (95% CI 47.0-54.4%) higher than expected among individuals aged 20-24 from May 2020 onward. Additional research is needed to ascertain the appropriateness of stimulant use and to develop strategies supporting children and youth with ADHD during future periods of long-term stressors.

Experiences and Outcomes of Using e-Prescribing for Opioids: Rapid Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: e-Prescribing is designed to assist in facilitating safe and appropriate prescriptions for patients. Currently, it is unknown to what extent e-prescribing for opioids influences experiences and outcomes. To address this gap, a rapid scoping review was conducted. OBJECTIVE: This rapid scoping review aims to (1) explore how e-prescribing has been used clinically; (2) examine the effects of e-prescribing on clinical outcomes, the patient or clinician experience, service delivery, and policy; and (3) identify current gaps in the present literature to inform future studies and recommendations. METHODS: A rapid scoping review was conducted following the guidance of the JBI 2020 scoping review methodology and the World Health Organization guide to rapid reviews. A comprehensive literature search was completed by an expert librarian from inception until November 16, 2022. Three databases were electronically searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus (Elsevier). The search criteria were as follows: (1) e-prescribing programs targeted to the use or misuse of opioids, including those that were complemented or accompanied by clinically focused initiatives, and (2) a primary research study of experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative, or mixed methods design. An additional criterion of an ambulatory component of e-prescribing (eg, e-prescribing occurred upon discharge from acute care) was added at the full-text stage. No language limitations or filters were applied. All articles were double screened by trained reviewers. Gray literature was manually searched by a single reviewer. Data were synthesized using a descriptive approach. RESULTS: Upon completing screening, 34 articles met the inclusion criteria: 32 (94%) peer-reviewed studies and 2 (6%) gray literature documents (1 thesis study and 1 report). All 33 studies had a quantitative component, with most highlighting e-prescribing from acute care settings to community settings (n=12, 36%). Only 1 (3%) of the 34 articles provided evidence on e-prescribing in a primary care setting. Minimal prescriber, pharmacist, and clinical population characteristics were reported. The main outcomes identified were related to opioid prescribing rates, alerts (eg, adverse drug events and drug-drug interactions), the quantity and duration of opioid prescriptions, the adoption of e-prescribing technology, attitudes toward e-prescribing, and potential challenges with the implementation of e-prescribing into clinical practice. e-Prescribing, including key features such as alerts and dose order sets, may reduce prescribing errors. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid scoping review highlights initial promising results with e-prescribing and opioid therapy management. It is important that future work explores the experience of prescribers, pharmacists, and patients using e-prescribing for opioid therapy management with an emphasis on prescribers in the community and primary care. Developing a common set of quality indicators for e-prescribing of opioids will help build a stronger evidence base. Understanding implementation considerations will be of importance as the technology is integrated into clinical practice and health systems.

Trends in Phenylephrine and Pseudoephedrine Sales in the US.

This study examines purchasing patterns regarding oral decongestants, concerns about their efficacy, and the need for timelier postmarket evaluation.

Alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists and the risk of hospitalization or death in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-1 receptor antagonists may interfere with IL-6 signaling and could therefore be a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs in mitigating the risk of clinical deterioration among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine the association between alpha-1 antagonist exposure and the 30-day risk of a hospital encounter or death in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario residents aged 35 years and older who were eligible for public drug coverage and who had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. We matched each individual receiving an alpha-1 antagonist at the time of their positive test with two non-exposed individuals using propensity scores. Our outcome was a composite of a hospital admission, emergency department visit, or death, 1 to 30 days following the positive test. RESULTS: We matched 3289 alpha-1 antagonist exposed patients to 6189 unexposed patients. Overall, there was no difference in the 30-day risk of the primary outcome among patients exposed to alpha-1 antagonists at the time of their diagnosis relative to unexposed individuals (28.8% vs. 28.0%; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11). In a secondary analysis, individuals exposed to alpha-1 antagonists had a lower risk of death in the 30 days following a COVID diagnosis (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). CONCLUSION: Alpha-1 antagonists did not mitigate the 30-day risk of clinical deterioration in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our findings do not support the general repurposing of alpha-1 antagonists as a treatment for such patients, although there may be subgroups of patients in whom further research is warranted.

Trends in diabetes medication prescribing from 2018 to 2021: A cross-sectional analysis.

Several new classes of medications for diabetes have recently become available newer medication classes have been increasing in use. It is unclear how their utilization varied across provinces and how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected these trends. Our objective was to investigate Canada-wide and province-specific trends in diabetes medication dispensed by drug class over time, while also examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on diabetes medication dispensing. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis study. Data were obtained from IQVIA's CompuScript database for Canada-wide prescription dispensing patterns in primary care from January 2018 to December 2021. Drug classes of interest were biguanides dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sulfonylurea's, insulins, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. We examined trends before and after the onset of the pandemic with special attention to changes during periods of high COVID-19 activity. Most drug classes displayed a stable number of prescriptions each month throughout, except for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, which demonstrated a consistent pattern of increased dispensing. Sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exhibited the greatest growth over the examined period, of 7.9% and 5.0% increases, respectively. For sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, Prince Edward Island (4.0%) displayed the greatest growth while Ontario showed the least (2.5%). For glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogs, Saskatchewan (11.3%) displayed the greatest growth and Newfoundland the least (4.5%). The pandemic did not impact overall dispensing trends. However, spikes in COVID-19 cases corresponded to changes in dispensing for most drug classes. Important variations across Canada in guideline-recommended medication classes seems to be increasing over time. This is likely due to differing formulary listing and access to drug coverages. If so, future research could explore national formulary harmonization across Canada and health outcomes for patients with diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Trends in opioid toxicities among people with and without opioid use disorder and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Across Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic occurred amidst an ongoing drug toxicity crisis. Although elevated rates of substance-related harms have been observed nationally, it remains unknown if the pandemic state of emergency led to disproportionate increases in opioid toxicities among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) compared to those without. METHODS: We conducted a population-based repeated cross-sectional time series analysis of fatal and non-fatal opioid toxicities between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021, in Ontario, Canada. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to examine the impact of the pandemic on monthly rates of opioid toxicities per 100,000 Ontario residents stratified by people with and without OUD. RESULTS: We identified 80,296 opioid toxicities of which 53.5 % occurred among people with OUD. Among 52,052 unique individuals, 60.5 % were male and 46.2 % were 25-44 years old. Between January 2014 and December 2021, the rate of opioid toxicities increased from 2.6 to 10.5 per 100,000 (rate ratio [RR]=4.07). The magnitude of this increase differed among people with OUD (0.8 to 7.4 per 100,000; RR=9.35) and without OUD (1.8 to 3.1 per 100,000; RR=1.74). We observed a significant ramp increase in the overall rate of opioid toxicities following the declaration of the pandemic emergency in March 2020 (+0.19 per 100,000 monthly, 95 % CI: 0.029, 0.36, p = 0.021). In a stratified analysis, we found a similar ramp increase among people with OUD (+0.19 per 100,000 monthly, 95 % CI: 0.10, 0.28, p < 0.001); however, this was not observed among people without OUD (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of opioid toxicities accelerated across Ontario following the pandemic-related state of emergency, with the majority of this increase among people with OUD. The important differences observed among people with OUD compared with those without, highlights the critical need for improved access to harm reduction and treatment interventions among this population.

Impact of COVID-19 on psychoactive medication use among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario, Canada: A repeated cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for worsening mental health among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during COVID-19 sparked concerns for increased use of psychoactive medications. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of COVID-19 on psychoactive medication use and clinical monitoring among individuals with IDD in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study among individuals with IDD and examined weekly trends for psychoactive medication dispensing and outpatient physician visits among those prescribed psychoactive medications between April 7, 2019, and March 25, 2023. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to determine the impact of the declaration of emergency for COVID-19 (March 17, 2020) on the aforementioned trends. RESULTS: The declaration of emergency for COVID-19 did not significantly impact psychoactive medication use among individuals with IDD. Provision of clinical monitoring remained relatively stable, apart from a short-term decline in the weekly rate of outpatient physician visits following the declaration of emergency for COVID-19 (step estimate: 21.26 per 1000 individuals [p < 0.01]; ramp estimate: 0.88 per 1000 individuals [p = 0.01]). When stratified by mode of delivery, there was a significant shift towards virtual care (step estimate: 78.80 per 1000 individuals; p < 0.01). The weekly rate of in-person physician visits gradually increased, returning to rates observed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2023. CONCLUSION: Although access to clinical care remained relatively stable, the shift towards virtual care may have negatively impacted those who encounter challenges communicating via virtual mediums. Future research is required to identify the support systems necessary for individuals with IDD during virtual health care interactions.

Adherence patterns 1 year after initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors: results of a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Adherence to medications is important for the management of chronic diseases. Although the proportion of days covered (PDC) is a common metric for measuring adherence, it may be insufficient to distinguish relevant differences in medication-taking behavior. Group-based trajectory models (GBTMs) have been used to better represent adherence over time. This study aims to examine adherence patterns 1 year after initiation among users of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors using GBTMs and evaluate the ability of baseline characteristics to predict adherence trajectory. STUDY DESIGN: SGLT2 inhibitor new-user cohort study from 2014 to 2018. METHODS: We calculated 12-month PDC and categorized patients with PDC of 80% or greater as adherent. We performed multivariable logistic regression on adherence status controlling for baseline covariates. GBTMs were fit to identify adherence patterns 12 months following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation. Five multinomial logistic regression models including different subsets of predictors were used to predict adherence trajectory group assignment. RESULTS: In a cohort of 228,363 SGLT2 inhibitor users, the mean PDC was 57%, with 36% of the cohort being adherent. Overall, women and patients with anxiety or depression were less likely to be adherent. Six patterns of SGLT2 inhibitor adherence were identified with GBTMs: 1 fill (PDC = 0.08), early discontinuation (PDC = 0.22), consistently low adherence (PDC = 0.35), moderate adherence (PDC = 0.48), high adherence (PDC = 0.79), and near-perfect adherence (PDC = 0.95). All prediction models showed poor predictive accuracy (0.35). CONCLUSIONS: We found wide variation in adherence patterns among SGLT2 inhibitor users in a national cohort. Predictors from a health care claims database were unable to accurately predict adherence trajectory.

Engaging critically: exploring the varying roles of lived experience advisors in an implementation science study on management of opioid prescribing.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is a key element within implementation science, the study of how to put evidence into practice. While conducting a 4-year implementation study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). LEAs were involved throughout the study, including developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and as a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. However, through regular critical reflection, we acknowledged that we were still uncertain how to articulate the impact of LEA involvement. As a team, we continually discussed why and how people with lived experience were involved in this study. We probed ill-defined concepts such as "patient perspective", which was particularly complex for a study focused on changing physician behaviour with indirect impact on patients. This critical reflection strengthened trust and rapport between team members (characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement), while underscoring the value of including concerted time to explore the muddier aspects of engagement. In short, patient engagement did not proceed as smoothly as planned. We advocate that "best practices" in the engagement of people with lived experience include regularly setting aside time outside of practical study tasks to interrogate complex aspects of patient engagement, including reflecting on how and why individuals with lived experience are involved.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is often a required element of applied research. Although there is a lot of guidance on how to engage individuals with lived experience, there is no single best-practice that always applies. Each team is different and must adapt to meet the needs of their study and team. While conducting a 4-year study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). The LEAs were involved in developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and were a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. As a team, we continually discussed why and how individuals with lived experience were involved in this study and probed concepts such as "patient perspective", which is complex in a study focused on changing physician behaviour. Setting aside time to not just work on a task but to critically reflect and ask questions led to new insights into why and how we do this work. For example, one of the patient handouts that was co-designed with patients and praised by some physicians we interviewed, was found by LEAs to be objectifying and lacking nuance, which further highlighted how the same material can be received in different ways. Our discussions also helped build trust and rapport, which are characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement. We advocate for study teams to dedicate time to interrogate the less straightforward aspects of patient engagement. In other words - "embrace the messiness".

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs in British Columbia: a retrospective interrupted time series study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis of comprehensive administrative health data linkages in British Columbia, Canada, from 1 January 2018 to 28 March 2021. SETTING: Retrospective population-based analysis of all prescription drugs dispensed in community pharmacies and outpatient hospital pharmacies and irrespective of the drug insurance payer. PARTICIPANTS: Between 4.30 and 4.37 million individuals (52% women) actively registered with the publicly funded medical services plan. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weekly dispensing rates and costs, both overall and stratified by therapeutic groups and pharmacological subgroups, before and after the declaration of the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Relative changes in post-COVID-19 outcomes were expressed as ratios of observed to expected rates. RESULTS: After the onset of the pandemic and subsequent COVID-19 mitigation measures, overall medication dispensing rates dropped by 2.4% (p<0.01), followed by a sustained weekly increase to return to predicted levels by the end of January 2021. We observed abrupt level decreases in antibacterials (30.3%, p<0.01) and antivirals (22.4%, p<0.01) that remained below counterfactuals over the first year of the pandemic. In contrast, there was a week-to-week trend increase in nervous system drugs, yielding an overall increase of 7.3% (p<0.01). No trend changes in the dispensing of respiratory system agents, ACE inhibitors, antidiabetic drugs and antidepressants were detected. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impact on prescription drug dispensing was heterogeneous across medication subgroups. As data become available, dispensing trends in nervous system agents, antibiotics and antivirals warrant further monitoring and investigation.