Cargando…

Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine

BACKGROUND: Meperidine (pethidine) offers little to no therapeutic advantage over other opioids, may be more prone to abuse, and produces a neurotoxic metabolite with a long half-life. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) issued warnings in 2004 and 2005 suggesting that meperidine be a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Friesen, Kevin J, Falk, Jamie, Bugden, Shawn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26719721
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S96625
_version_ 1782406697087664128
author Friesen, Kevin J
Falk, Jamie
Bugden, Shawn
author_facet Friesen, Kevin J
Falk, Jamie
Bugden, Shawn
author_sort Friesen, Kevin J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Meperidine (pethidine) offers little to no therapeutic advantage over other opioids, may be more prone to abuse, and produces a neurotoxic metabolite with a long half-life. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) issued warnings in 2004 and 2005 suggesting that meperidine be avoided, and when used, it should be in limited doses (<600 mg/24 h) and for a limited duration (<48 hours). Hospitals have responded to these warnings, but much less is known about meperidine prescribing in the community setting. This study examined the potential impact of ISMP warnings on the prescribing of meperidine using time series analysis. METHODS: A population-based longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted to examine oral meperidine utilization among persons 16 years of age and older in Manitoba, Canada, between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2014. Amounts of meperidine were expressed using defined daily doses (DDDs), the equivalent of 400 mg of meperidine per day. The number of meperidine prescriptions and users per quarter were determined and analyzed using regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 49,063 prescriptions for 442,641 DDDs of meperidine dispensed to 9,374 distinct users. The number of DDDs of meperidine per 1,000 persons peaked in the second quarter of 2003 at 11.75, and then dropped to a low of 5.36 by 2014. This represented a marked decline in the numbers of users and prescriptions over the study period. The piecewise regression model revealed a significant breakpoint in the last quarter of 2004 (F((3, 48))=337.00, P<0.0001). In contrast to these findings, among the remaining users, there was an increase in the amount of meperidine per prescription (increase of 0.34 DDDs/prescription/year; F(1, 50)=434, P<0.0001, R(2)=0.89) and the amount of meperidine per user (increase of 1.17 DDDs/user/year; F(1, 50)=653.5, P<0.0001, R(2)=0.93). CONCLUSION: Following the ISMP warnings, meperidine use dramatically declined. Unfortunately, the remaining users of meperidine are using more meperidine and receiving more meperidine in each prescription. This pattern of results suggests that there may be limits to voluntary safety warnings. Policy action such as removal of medication insurance coverage may represent a logical next step to reverse or de-adopt meperidine and further enhance patient safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4687958
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46879582015-12-30 Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine Friesen, Kevin J Falk, Jamie Bugden, Shawn J Pain Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Meperidine (pethidine) offers little to no therapeutic advantage over other opioids, may be more prone to abuse, and produces a neurotoxic metabolite with a long half-life. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) issued warnings in 2004 and 2005 suggesting that meperidine be avoided, and when used, it should be in limited doses (<600 mg/24 h) and for a limited duration (<48 hours). Hospitals have responded to these warnings, but much less is known about meperidine prescribing in the community setting. This study examined the potential impact of ISMP warnings on the prescribing of meperidine using time series analysis. METHODS: A population-based longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted to examine oral meperidine utilization among persons 16 years of age and older in Manitoba, Canada, between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2014. Amounts of meperidine were expressed using defined daily doses (DDDs), the equivalent of 400 mg of meperidine per day. The number of meperidine prescriptions and users per quarter were determined and analyzed using regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 49,063 prescriptions for 442,641 DDDs of meperidine dispensed to 9,374 distinct users. The number of DDDs of meperidine per 1,000 persons peaked in the second quarter of 2003 at 11.75, and then dropped to a low of 5.36 by 2014. This represented a marked decline in the numbers of users and prescriptions over the study period. The piecewise regression model revealed a significant breakpoint in the last quarter of 2004 (F((3, 48))=337.00, P<0.0001). In contrast to these findings, among the remaining users, there was an increase in the amount of meperidine per prescription (increase of 0.34 DDDs/prescription/year; F(1, 50)=434, P<0.0001, R(2)=0.89) and the amount of meperidine per user (increase of 1.17 DDDs/user/year; F(1, 50)=653.5, P<0.0001, R(2)=0.93). CONCLUSION: Following the ISMP warnings, meperidine use dramatically declined. Unfortunately, the remaining users of meperidine are using more meperidine and receiving more meperidine in each prescription. This pattern of results suggests that there may be limits to voluntary safety warnings. Policy action such as removal of medication insurance coverage may represent a logical next step to reverse or de-adopt meperidine and further enhance patient safety. Dove Medical Press 2015-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4687958/ /pubmed/26719721 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S96625 Text en © 2015 Friesen et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Friesen, Kevin J
Falk, Jamie
Bugden, Shawn
Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title_full Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title_fullStr Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title_full_unstemmed Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title_short Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
title_sort voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26719721
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S96625
work_keys_str_mv AT friesenkevinj voluntarywarningsandthelimitsofgoodprescribingbehaviorthecasefordeadoptionofmeperidine
AT falkjamie voluntarywarningsandthelimitsofgoodprescribingbehaviorthecasefordeadoptionofmeperidine
AT bugdenshawn voluntarywarningsandthelimitsofgoodprescribingbehaviorthecasefordeadoptionofmeperidine