cardioToxCSM: A Web Server for Predicting Cardiotoxicity of Small Molecules.

The design of novel, safe, and effective drugs to treat human diseases is a challenging venture, with toxicity being one of the main sources of attrition at later stages of development. Failure due to toxicity incurs a significant increase in costs and time to market, with multiple drugs being withdrawn from the market due to their adverse effects. Cardiotoxicity, for instance, was responsible for the failure of drugs such as fenspiride, propoxyphene, and valdecoxib. While significant effort has been dedicated to mitigate this issue by developing computational approaches that aim to identify molecules likely to be toxic, including quantitative structure-activity relationship models and machine learning methods, current approaches present limited performance and interpretability. To overcome these, we propose a new web-based computational method, cardioToxCSM, which can predict six types of cardiac toxicity outcomes, including arrhythmia, cardiac failure, heart block, hERG toxicity, hypertension, and myocardial infarction, efficiently and accurately. cardioToxCSM was developed using the concept of graph-based signatures, molecular descriptors, toxicophore matchings, and molecular fingerprints, leveraging explainable machine learning, and was validated internally via different cross validation schemes and externally via low-redundancy blind sets. The models presented robust performances with areas under ROC curves of up to 0.898 on 5-fold cross-validation, consistent with metrics on blind tests. Additionally, our models provide interpretation of the predictions by identifying whether substructures that are commonly enriched in toxic compounds were present. We believe cardioToxCSM will provide valuable insight into the potential cardiotoxicity of small molecules early on drug screening efforts. The method is made freely available as a web server at https://biosig.lab.uq.edu.au/cardiotoxcsm.

Comparative risk-benefit profiles of weak opioids in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite their poor tolerance, weak opioids are still the most commonly-prescribed medicine for osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively examine the efficacy and safety of weak opioids in OA treatment. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception to 4 April 2022 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weak opioids with placebo or between one another in OA patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the following outcomes of interest, namely the change-from-baseline score in pain relief, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), central nervous system (CNS) AEs, and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of subjects experiencing any AE for at least once) during follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the effectiveness of each treatment and identify the best treatment. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs invoving four types of weak opioids were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, tramadol (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.34, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.53 to -0.18) and codeine (SMD = -0.39, 95% CrI: -0.79 to -0.04) were effective for pain relief, but involved a higher risk of GI AEs, CNS AEs and total number of AEs. Dextropropoxyphene demonstrated a significantly lower risk of GI AEs (OR = 0.28, 95%CrI: 0.17 to 0.51), CNS AEs (OR = 0.29, 95%CrI: 0.11 to 0.78) and total number of AEs (OR = 0.35, 95%CrI: 0.15 to 0.82) compared to codeine. Dihydrocodeine had a better safety profile in CNS AEs (SUCRA = 64.8%) and total number of AEs (SUCRA = 66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study confirmed that tramadol and codeine were effective drugs for the treatment of OA, but involved considerable safety issues. Dextropropoxyphene and dihydrocodeine exhibited a relatively good safety profile but their efficacy still warrant further investigation.

Response to Propoxyphene Market Withdrawal: Analgesic Substitutes, Doses, and Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVE: Experts cautioned that patients affected by the November 2010 withdrawal of the opioid analgesic propoxyphene might receive riskier prescriptions. To explore this, we compared drug receipts and outcomes among propoxyphene users before and aftermarket withdrawal. STUDY DESIGN: Using OptumLabs data, we studied 3 populations: commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) aged (age 65+ y) and MA disabled (age below 65 y) enrollees. The exposed enrollees received propoxyphene in the 3 months before market withdrawal (n=13,622); historical controls (unexposed) received propoxyphene 1 year earlier (n=9971). Regression models estimated daily milligrams morphine equivalent (MME), daily prescription acetaminophen dose, potentially toxic acetaminophen doses, nonopioid prescription analgesics receipt, emergency room visits, and diagnosed falls, motor vehicle accidents, and hip fractures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Aged MA enrollees illustrate the experience of all 3 populations examined. Following the market withdrawal, propoxyphene users in the exposed cohort experienced an abrupt decline of 69% in average daily MME, compared with a 14% decline in the unexposed. Opioids were discontinued by 34% of the exposed cohort and 18% of the unexposed. Tramadol and hydrocodone were the most common opioids substituted for propoxyphene. The proportion of each group receiving ≥4 g of prescription acetaminophen per day decreased from 12% to 2% in the exposed group but increased from 6% to 8% among the unexposed. Adverse events were rare and not significantly different in exposed versus unexposed groups. CONCLUSIONS: After propoxyphene market withdrawal, many individuals experienced abrupt discontinuation of opioids. Policymakers might consider supporting appropriate treatment transitions and monitoring responses following drug withdrawals.

Pregnancy outcome following opioid exposure: A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids constitute a cornerstone of pain relief treatment. However, opioid safety during pregnancy has not been well established. Recent studies reported an association between in utero opioid exposure and spina bifida. METHODS: In order to further evaluate the association of opioids exposure during pregnancy with adverse pregnancy outcomes, we conducted a large historical cohort by linking four databases: medications dispensations, births, pregnancy terminations for medical reasons and infant hospitalizations during the years of 1999-2009. Confounders that were controlled for included maternal age, ethnicity, maternal diabetes, smoking status, parity, obesity, year and folic acid intake. A secondary analysis for total major malformations and for spina bifida was performed using propensity score matching for first trimester exposure. RESULTS: Of the 101,586 women included in the study, 3003 were dispensed opioids during the first trimester. Intrauterine exposure to opioids was not associated with overall major malformations (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13), cardiovascular malformations (aOR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.13) other malformations by systems or spina bifida in particular. However, the risk for spina bifida among newborns and abortuses who were exposed to codeine was four times higher than that of the unexposed (aOR = 4.42, 95% CI 1.60-12.23). This association remained significant in a secondary analysis using propensity score matching. Third trimester exposure to opioids was not associated with low birth weight (aOR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.52), perinatal death (aOR = 1.38, 95% CI 0.64-2.99) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that opioids exposure (as a homogenous group) is not a significant risk factor for overall major malformations. Exposure to codeine during the first trimester was found to be associated with increased risk of spina bifida. However, this finding was based on a small number of cases and need to be verified in future work.

Relative toxicity of analgesics commonly used for intentional self-poisoning: A study of case fatality based on fatal and non-fatal overdoses.

BACKGROUND: Analgesics are used most frequently in fatal and non-fatal medicinal self-poisonings. Knowledge about their relative toxicity in overdose is important for clinicians and regulatory agencies. METHODS: Using data for 2005-2012 we investigated case fatality (number of suicides relative to number of non-fatal self-poisonings) of paracetamol, aspirin, codeine, dihydrocodeine, tramadol, paracetamol with codeine (co-codamol), paracetamol with dihydrocodeine (co-dydramol), ibuprofen and co-proxamol (paracetamol plus dextropropoxyphene; withdrawn in the UK in 2008 due to high toxicity). Data on suicides obtained from the Office for National Statistics and on non-fatal self-poisonings from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England. Case fatality was estimated for each drug, using paracetamol as the reference category. RESULTS: Compared to paracetamol and based on single drug deaths the case fatality index of dihydrocodeine was considerably elevated (odds ratio (OR) 12.81, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 10.19-16.12). Case fatality indices for tramadol (OR 4.05, 95% CI 3.38-4.85) and codeine (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.81-2.70) were also significantly higher than for paracetamol. The results when multiple drug deaths were included produced similar results. The relative toxicity of co-proxamol far exceeded that of the other analgesics. LIMITATIONS: Data on fatal self-poisonings were based on national data, whereas those for non-fatal poisonings were based on local data. CONCLUSIONS: Dihydrocodeine and tramadol are particularly toxic in overdose and codeine is also relatively toxic. They should be prescribed with caution, particularly to individuals at risk of self-harm.

Prescription opioid analgesic use in France: Trends and impact on morbidity-mortality.

BACKGROUND: While data from USA and Canada demonstrate an opioid overdose epidemic, very little nation-wide European studies have been published on this topical subject. METHODS: Using a nationally representative sample of the French Claims database (>700,000 patients), the exhaustive nationwide hospital discharge database, and national mortality registry, all patients dispensed at least one prescription opioid (PO) in 2004-2017 were identified, to describe trends in PO analgesic use, shopping behaviour, opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths. Annual prevalence of PO use and shopping behaviour (≥1 day of overlapping prescriptions from ≥2 prescribers, dispensed by ≥3 pharmacies) was estimated. RESULTS: In 2004-2017, the annual prevalence of weak opioid use codeine, tramadol and opium rose by 150%, 123%, and 244%, respectively (p < 0.05). Strong opioid use increased from 0.54% to 1.1% (+104%, p < 0.05), significantly for oxycodone (+1950%). Strong opioid use in chronic noncancer pain rose by 88% (p < 0.05) and 1180% for oxycodone. Opioid shopping increased from 0.50% to 0.67% (+34%, p < 0.05), associated with higher mortality risk HR = 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-6.4]. Opioid-related hospitalizations increased from 15 to 40 per 1,000,000 population (+167%, 2000-2017), and opioid-related deaths from 1.3 to 3.2 per 1,000,000 population (+146%, 2000-2015). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a first European approach to a nationwide estimation with complete access to several national registries. In 2004-2017 in France, PO use excluding dextropropoxyphene more than doubled. The increase in oxycodone and fentanyl use, and nontrivial increasing trend in opioid-related morbidity-mortality should prompt authorities to closely monitor PO consumption in order to prevent alarming increases in opioid-related morbidity-mortality. SIGNIFICANCE: In 2004-2017, prescription opioid use in France at least doubled and oxycodone use increased particularly, associated with a nontrivial increase in opioid-related morbidity-mortality. Although giving no indication for an 'opioid epidemic,' these findings call for proper monitoring of opioid use.

Dextrophropoxyphene effects on QTc-interval prolongation: Frequency and characteristics in relation to plasma levels.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate frequency and risk factors for dextropropoxypheneinduced QT-interval prolongation in the clinical setting. DESIGN: Prospective, noninterventional, observational, longitudinal cohort approach. Electrocardiograms were blindly evaluated by independent professionals. SETTING: General ward of a public hospital of metropolitan Buenos Aires. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-two patients with indication of receiving dextropropoxyphene for analgesic purposes were included consecutively. All patients finished the study. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were monitored with electrocardiographic controls (previous to drug administration and during steady state) to diagnose and quantify changes in the duration of the QTc interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Frequency of drug-induced QTc interval prolongation, QTc interval correlation with plasma drug, and metabolite levels. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were studied (50 percent males). All patients received a (mean ± SD [range]) dextropropoxyphene dose of 125 ± 25[100-150] mg/d. Dextropropoxyphene and norpropoxyphene concentrations were 112 ± 38[45-199] and 65 ± 33[13-129] ng/mL, respectively. The intra-treatment QTc interval was >450 ms in only one patient (only with the Hodge correction). There were no cases of QTc > 500 ms, and there were no significant differences in the results considering different correction formulas (Bazzet, Fridericia, Framingham, Hodges). Dextropropoxyphene concentrations correlated with QTc (R > 0.45) interval and ΔQTc (R 0.52-0.87), whereas norpropoxyphene correlation was even greater for QTc (R > 0.40-0.64) and ΔQTc (R > 0.47-0.92). Depending on the QTc correction formula, eight patients presented ΔQTc > 30 ms and one patient with ΔQTc > 60 ms. No patient presented arrhythmia during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe a relationship between dextropropoxyphene and QTc interval prolongation at the therapeutic doses used in Argentina.

Perceptions of French general practitioners and patients regarding dextropropoxyphene withdrawal: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Dextropropoxyphene (DXP), a step 2 analgesic commonly prescribed in France, was withdrawn from the French market in 2011 following a European decision due to its poor risk-benefit ratio. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of French general practitioners (GPs) and patients regarding DXP withdrawal. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on 26 individual semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Rhône-Alpes region of France. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen patients and 13 GPs. METHODS: Interviews were conducted to collect data concerning the status of DXP, its efficacy and safety, the conditions of DXP's withdrawal and its potential impact. The transcripts were analysed using NVivo software. RESULTS: DXP was a very popular drug among both patients and GPs. Its withdrawal was a bad experience for patients and many GPs; these misunderstood the reasons for its withdrawal and several contested them. They generally recognised more benefits than risks of DXP and considered alternative drugs unsatisfactory. In the same period, a French court case regarding another drug led to distrust towards the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare institutions, which contributed to the negative feelings reported. However, the experience was positive for the GPs who had been alerted to the poor DXP risk-benefit ratio well before its withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from physicians who were previously informed of its poor risk-benefit ratio, DXP withdrawal was not a good experience for patients and GPs. Better anticipation by the health authorities, in terms of pharmacoepidemiological surveillance and communication to healthcare professionals as well as the general public, should provide better acceptance of such a decision in the future.

Effect of the market withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene on use of other prescribed analgesics.

Background and aims Dextropropoxyphene (DXP) is a synthetic opioid that was prescribed worldwide for mild to moderate pain. It was withdrawn from the European market in 2009. In this study we aim to investigate the effect of the market withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene in Norway on overall use of opioids and other analgesics at an individual level. Methods Data were collected from the nationwide Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD). It covers all prescription of drugs from 01 January 2004 from Norwegian pharmacies dispensed to individuals outside institutions. The study period was divided in two 2-year periods from 01 September 2008 to 31 August 2010, and from the market withdrawal of DXP on 01 September 2010 to 31 August 2012. We included every individual that filled at least one prescription of dextropropoxyphene in the first 2-year period in our study population. In this study dextropropoxyphene, codeine and tramadol are defined as "weak opioids", and all other opioids are termed "strong opioids". Results Nine thousand one hundred and seventy-one individuals were included in our study population. Four thousand two hundred and ninety filled a prescription of DXP only once and were classified as "single users", 2,990 were users with prescriptions of up to 200 defined daily doses (DDD) over the first 2-year period, or "sporadic users", and 1,886 were classified high users with over 200 DDDs over a 2-year period. After the market withdrawal 8,392 continued to be prescribed analgesics or benzodiazepines. In the single user group, the proportion of users of weak opioids decreased from 69.5% to 57.6%, whereas the proportion of users of strong opioids was unchanged. Among the sporadic user group, the proportion of users of weak opioids went from 69.7% to 71.0%, the proportion using tramadol from 39.1% to 43.9%, and the users of strong opioids from 25.8% to 31.3%. In the high user group, there was an increase in the number of users of strong opioids from 37.8% to 51.4%. The amount of strong opioids prescribed in the high user group increased from a mean of 262.5 DDD to a mean of 398.3 DDD in the following 2 years. The amount of tramadol increased in all groups and was 3 times as high in the high user group after market withdrawal of DXP. Conclusions Our study showed that the withdrawal of DXP lead to an increase in prescription of other analgesics. The proportion of users increased in all three groups and so did the prescribed amount of other analgesics. Both the proportion of users of other opioids and the amount prescribed increased considerably. However, 1 in 10 earlier users of DXP stopped using prescribed analgesics altogether in the following 2 years. The increase in use among earlier high users of DXP was most striking. Implications This study documents markedly increased prescriptions of other opioids after withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene due to its high risk of serious complications. However, consequences of the increased use of opioids among earlier high users of DXP such as changes in risk of poisonings, accidental deaths and suicides remain to be investigated.

Is tapentadol a potential Trojan horse in the postdextropropoxyphene era in India?

Tapentadol is a centrally acting opioid analgesic which has partial opioid agonistic and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor action similar to its nearest congener and tramadol though with a relatively higher µ-affinity. It has abuse potential, is a scheduled drug, yet currently is not known to be an opioid widely misused in India. However, under the current drug abuse legislation in India, where common prescription opioids such as dextropropoxyphene have been banned, tapentadol may take the center stage of pharmaceutical opioid abuse in the near future. We present a series of two cases where the opioid use started with codeine, dextropropoxyphene, and buprenorphine but moved on to tapentadol and tramadol due to ease of access and cost. These cases highlight the potential of tapentadol in replacing dextropropoxyphene as the widespread prescription opioid of abuse and also emphasize the current controversies regarding opioid control policies in India.

Use of analgesics in France, following dextropropoxyphene withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the European Medicines Agency recommended withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene (DXP); in March 2011 it was withdrawn from the market in France. Up until that time the combination dextropropoxyphene-paracetamol (DXP/PC) was widely used for analgesia. At withdrawal, French regulators recommended that DXP/PC be replaced by other step 2 analgesics, i.e. tramadol, codeine, or opium-containing drugs, or by PC for a weak level of pain. To investigate prescribing behaviours after DXP/PC withdrawal, dispensations of analgesics before and after withdrawal were analysed. METHODS: Aggregated dispensation data of analgesics prescribed between January 2009 and December 2012 in the Rhône-Alpes region were obtained from the general health insurance claims data; changes in analgesic dispensation over time were analysed with the ATC/DDD methodology. Pre (Jan-June 2009) and post-withdrawal (Jan-June 2012) changes of DDDs where computed for each analgesic step. RESULTS: The dispensations of DXP/PC experienced a two-step decrease until 2011. Over the withdrawal period 2009-2012, there was a 14% decrease in the overall use of analgesic (from 109 to 94 DDDs), while the use of step 2 analgesics declined by 46% (- 22 DDDs, from 47 to 25 DDDs). This latter decline included a cessation of use of DXP/PC (29 DDDs in 2009) that were only in part (+ 7 DDDs, from 18 to 25 DDDs) compensated by increased use of codeine, tramadol and opium, in monotherapy or combined with PC. For step 1 analgesics, use increased with 9%, mostly PC (+ 8 DDDs, from 31 to 39 DDDs). Step 3 analgesics dispensations remained largely unchanged over this period (around 3 DDDs). CONCLUSIONS: In the Rhône-Alpes region, DXP/PC withdrawal was accompanied in part by an increased use of same level analgesics, and in part by an increased use of PC in monotherapy. The extent of DXP/PC use before withdrawal, and the increased use of PC after DXP withdrawal, underline the complexity of pain management.

Using Pill Identification Calls to Poison Centers as a Marker of Drug Abuse at Three Texas Military Bases.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid abuse is a growing problem in civilian communities, and it has developed in the military as well. Telephone calls to poison centers requesting pill identification (ID) is a marker of drug abuse. This study identifies the number of pill ID calls made to the poison centers from areas containing and surrounding three Texas military bases during an 8-year period. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study identifying calls to certified poison centers in Texas from 2002 to 2009 that identified hydrocodone tablets and other pain medications. We noted the calls made from ZIP codes containing and surrounding the three largest military bases in Texas. RESULTS: We reviewed 75,537 drug ID calls for any drug from the ZIP codes of interest. Total drug ID calls increased 105% and the number of calls for hydrocodone increased 463%. CONCLUSIONS: In our study most of the drug ID calls from military communities in Texas were for hydrocodone. The rate of calls for hydrocodone increased more than the rate of calls for other analgesics from 2002 to 2009. Using drug ID calls as a surrogate of drug abuse, our results suggest that hydrocodone abuse has increased within military communities and that poison center data can be a reliable surrogate for prescription drug abuse near military bases. Future studies are needed to further understand the extent of this problem in military and civilian communities. We can use this information to heighten awareness, influence prescription practices, establish practice guidelines, and develop educational programs to mitigate the increasing rate of prescription analgesic abuse in the United States.

Fatal poisonings involving propoxyphene before and after voluntary withdrawal from the United States' market: An analysis from the state of Florida.

The synthetic opioid propoxyphene was a schedule IV controlled substance with multiple reported health risks before the US Food and Drug Administration issued a request for voluntary market withdrawal in November 2010. The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics and occurrences of propoxyphene-related deaths in Florida before and after voluntary market removal. Decedent-level toxicology data from Florida's Medical Examiners Commission was used to compare the temporal, polysubstance use, sociodemographic, and geographic profiles associated with propoxyphene-involved deaths for a pre-withdrawal (November 2008-November 2010) and post-withdrawal (December 2010-December 2012) period. Sensitivity analyses using multiple data sources, including Florida's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and other states' data, were conducted to examine potential reporting bias. Results showed that the number of propoxyphene-involved deaths declined by 84% from 580 deaths to 92 deaths after market withdrawal. The co-occurrence of other prevalent drugs, such as oxycodone (17.2% to 26.1%, p=0.0422) increased significantly in the post-withdrawal study period. A larger proportion of the propoxyphene-related deaths were reported from South Florida after the withdrawal (28.4% to 56.5%, p<0.0001). No significant changes in age and race/ethnicity were observed. Sensitivity analyses revealed that several deaths occurred in other states after market withdrawal, as recently as 2016. Our findings are consistent with previous studies that propoxyphene was still available after removal from the US market. Continued surveillance is recommended after highly abused opioids are withdrawn from the market due to on-going safety risks.

Impact of Medicine Withdrawal on Reporting of Adverse Events Involving Therapeutic Alternatives: A Study from the French Spontaneous Reporting Database.

INTRODUCTION: The consequences of the withdrawal of marketing authorisation of drugs have mostly been studied considering drug prescription patterns for the therapeutic alternatives of the withdrawn drugs. The potential concomitant changes in the reporting of adverse reactions concerning these alternatives have been studied less often. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the changes in the reporting of adverse events (AEs) for therapeutic alternatives after the withdrawal of three medicines (dextropropoxyphene, pioglitazone and tetrazepam) from the market for safety reasons. METHODS: This study was performed using both the French pharmacovigilance database and the Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires (a random sample of French health insurance affiliates). For dextropropoxyphene, pioglitazone and tetrazepam alternatives, the number and types of case reports were studied for both the year preceding the first official safety warning and the year following the withdrawal. Reporting rates expressed per 10,000 reimbursements (RRReimb) and per 10,000 treated patients (RRPat) were also compared for the two periods. RESULTS: After dextropropoxyphene withdrawal, case reports and reimbursements increased for tramadol (case reports: +23%, reimbursements: +13%) and codeine (case reports: +74%, reimbursements: +47%), RRPat being significantly increased for tramadol (0.92 vs. 1.06, p = 0.02). After pioglitazone withdrawal, case reports increased for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glinides, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues (+84%, +22% and +5%, respectively) and reimbursements (+55, +11 and +50%, respectively); both decreased for sulfonylureas (case reports: -6%, reimbursements: -2%). RRPat increased for DPP-4 inhibitors (1.63 vs. 2.26, p = 0.008). After tetrazepam withdrawal, case reports increased for diazepam, methocarbamol and thiocolchicoside (+110, +86 and +157%, respectively), as lesser did reimbursements. RRPat increased for diazepam (1.78 vs. 2.41, p = 0.054) and thiocolchicoside (0.14 vs. 0.24, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: For the three drug withdrawals investigated, the number of case reports involving alternatives increased to a larger extent than the numbers of prescriptions. This could relate to a higher occurrence of AEs in new users of alternatives who switched from the withdrawn medicines or to an increased awareness of possible AEs.

Simultaneous quantitation of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene in human plasma using solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: Method validation and application to cardiovascular safety of therapeutic doses.

RATIONALE: Several opioid analgesics have been related to the prolongation of cardiac repolarization, a condition which can be fatal. In order to establish a correct estimation of the risk/benefit balance of therapeutic doses of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene, it was necessary to develop an analytical method to determinate plasma concentrations of these opioids. METHODS: Here we describe a method which incorporates strong alkaline treatment to obtain norpropoxyphene amide followed by a one-elution step solid-phase extraction, and without further derivatization. Separation and quantification were achieved by gas chromatography/electron ionization mass spectrometry (GC/EI-MS) in selected-ion monitoring mode. Quantification was performed with 500 µL of plasma by the addition of deuterated analogues as internal standards. RESULTS: The proposed method has been validated in the linearity range of 25-1000 ng/mL for all the analytes, with correlation coefficients higher than 0.990. The lower limit of quantification was 25 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precision, calculated in terms of relative standard deviation, were 2.0-12.0% and 6.0-15.0%, respectively. The accuracy, in terms of relative error, was within a ± 10% interval. The absolute recovery and extraction efficiency ranged from 81.0 to 111.0% and 81.0 to 105.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A GC/MS method for the rapid and simultaneous determination of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene in human plasma was developed, optimized and validated. This procedure was shown to be sensitive and specific using small specimen amounts, suitable for application in routine analysis for forensic purposes and therapeutic monitoring. To our knowledge, this is the first full validation of the simultaneous determination of these opioids and their metabolites in plasma samples.

Changing Trends in Opioid Use Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid prescribing recently has come under intense scrutiny. However, longitudinal patterns of prescription opioid receipt in a population-based cohort of patients with chronic pain, such as those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have not been well characterized. The aim of this study was to examine both trends over time and variability in individual physician prescribing of short-term and long-term use of opioids. METHODS: We identified a cohort of RA patients based on 2006-2014 Medicare data and evaluated longitudinal time trends in "regular" use of opioids. A separate analysis conducted in 2014 assessed rheumatologist-specific variability in regular use of opioid prescriptions in patients with RA. RESULTS: We identified 97,859 RA patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The mean age of the patients was 67 years, 80% were female, 82% were white, and 12% were African American. The most commonly used opioids were those that combined acetaminophen with hydrocodone or propoxyphene. Regular opioid prescribing increased slowly but peaked in 2010 before propoxyphene was withdrawn from the market. Following the withdrawal of propoxyphene, receipt of hydrocodone and tramadol increased commensurately, and overall opioid use declined only slightly. Factors associated with regular use of opioids included younger age, female sex, African American race, back pain, fibromyalgia, anxiety, and depression. Variability between US rheumatologists (n = 4,024) in prescribing the regular use of opioids for their RA patients was high; in the average rheumatologist's practice, 40% of RA patients used prescription opioids regularly. In almost half of the patients, at least some opioid prescriptions were written by a rheumatologist, and 14% received opioids that were co-prescribed concurrently by more than 1 physician. CONCLUSION: In the US, opioid use in older patients with RA peaked in 2010 and is now declining slightly. Withdrawal of propoxyphene from the US market in 2010 had minimal effect on overall opioid use, because use of propoxyphene was replaced by increased use of other opioids.

[Opioid prescription changes in Sweden 2000­2015]. / Dynamiken i förskrivningen av opioider i Sverige 2000­2015 - Markanta omfördelningar inom opioidgruppen, men ingen ¼epidemi«.

Opioid prescription changes in Sweden 2000-2015 In contrast to the well-established ¼opioid epidemic« in the US, very little is known about how the prescription of opioids in Sweden has developed during the last decade. Aggregated data from the open Statistical database of the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare were analyzed descriptively. The yearly prevalence of opioid prescription did not change 2006-2015, but there were dramatic shifts in the choice of opioids. During this period, dextropropoxyphene was pulled off the market. Tramadol was used by fewer individuals (-54 % over the decade), but dosages expressed as Defined Daily Dose/patient/year (DDD/pat/y) increased (+41 %). In contrast, oxycodone and morphine were used by more individuals (+465 % and +137 %, respectively), but DDD/pat/y decreased during the period (-56% and -54%). Studies on non-aggregated data from available registries are needed to further elucidate the circumstances and possible consequences of these shifts in opioid prescription patterns.