Search

Introduction and aims

Design and methods

Results

Discussion and conclusion

AIMS: To summarize evidence on the frequency and predictors of health-care utilization among people who use illicit drugs. DESIGN: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO for observational studies reporting health-care utilization published between 1 January 2000 and 3 December 2018. We conducted narrative synthesis and meta-analysis following a registered protocol (identifier: CRD42017076525). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: People who use heroin, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, ecstasy/3,4-methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine (MDMA), cannabis, hallucinogens or novel psychoactive substances; have a diagnosis of 'substance use disorder'; or use drug treatment services. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were the cumulative incidence (risk) and rate of care episodes in three settings: primary care, hospital admissions (in-patient) and emergency department (ED). FINDINGS: Ninety-two studies were included, 84% from North America and Australia. Most studies focused on people using heroin, methamphetamine or crack cocaine, or who had a diagnosis of drug dependence. We were able to conduct a meta-analysis of rates across 25 studies reporting ED episodes and 25 reporting hospital admissions, finding pooled rates of 151 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 114-201] and 41 (95% CI = 30-57) per 100 person-years, respectively; on average 4.8 and 7.1 times more often than the general population. Heterogeneity was very high and was not explained by drugs used, country of study, recruitment setting or demographic characteristics. Predictors of health-care utilization were consistent across studies and included unstable housing, drug injection and mental health problems. Opioid substitution therapy was consistently associated with reduced ED presentation and hospital admission. There was minimal research on health-care utilization by people using ecstasy/MDMA, powder cocaine, hallucinogens or novel psychoactive substances. CONCLUSIONS: People who use illicit dr

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People who have recently injected drugs are a priority population in efforts to achieve hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This study estimated the prevalence and number of people with recent injecting drug use living with HCV, and the proportion of people with recent injecting drug use among all people living with HCV infection at global, regional and country-levels. METHODS: Data from a global systematic review of injecting drug use and HCV antibody prevalence among people with recent (previous year) injecting drug use were used to estimate the prevalence and number of people with recent injecting drug use living with HCV. These data were combined with a systematic review of global HCV prevalence to estimate the proportion of people with recent injecting drug use among all people living with HCV. RESULTS: There are an estimated 6.1 million [95% uncertainty interval (UI) = 3.4-9.2] people with recent injecting drug use aged 15-64 years living with HCV globally (39.2% viraemic prevalence; UI = 31.6-47.0), with the greatest numbers in East and Southeast Asia (1.5 million, UI = 1.0-2.1), eastern Europe (1.5 million, UI = 0.7-2.4) and North America (1.0 million, UI = 0.4-1.7). People with recent injecting drug use comprise an estimated 8.5% (UI = 4.6-13.1) of all HCV infections globally, with the greatest proportions in North America (30.5%, UI = 11.7-56.7), Latin America (22.0%, UI = 15.3-30.4) and eastern Europe (17.9%, UI = 8.2-30.9). CONCLUSIONS: Although, globally, 39.2% of people with recent injecting drug use are living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and 8.5% of all HCV infections occur globally among people with recent injecting drug use, there is wide variation among countries and regions.

Variation in global estimates of the prevalence of injecting or opioid use from recent reports are partly explained by use of alternative information sources and value given to unreferenced country estimates; but also highlights a prevailing problem with the reporting and robustness of prevalence estimates. Unfortunately, there is no quick solution: we need investment both in ongoing information or surveillance of drug related harms and clinical and other interventions and in the implementation of more refined statistical methods to estimate prevalence.

AIMS: This review provides an up-to-date curated source of information on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use and their associated mortality and burden of disease. Limitations in the data are also discussed, including how these can be addressed in the future. METHODS: Online data sources were identified through expert review. Data were obtained mainly from the World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. RESULTS: In 2015, the estimated prevalence among the adult population was 18.4% for heavy episodic alcohol use (in the past 30 days); 15.2% for daily tobacco smoking; and 3.8, 0.77, 0.37 and 0.35% for past-year cannabis, amphetamine, opioid and cocaine use, respectively. European regions had the highest prevalence of heavy episodic alcohol use and daily tobacco use. The age-standardized prevalence of alcohol dependence was 843.2 per 100 000 people; for cannabis, opioids, amphetamines and cocaine dependence it was 259.3, 220.4, 86.0 and 52.5 per 100 000 people, respectively. High-income North America region had among the highest rates of cannabis, opioid and cocaine dependence. Attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were highest for tobacco smoking (170.9 million DALYs), followed by alcohol (85.0 million) and illicit drugs (27.8 million). Substance-attributable mortality rates were highest for tobacco smoking (110.7 deaths per 100 000 people), followed by alcohol and illicit drugs (33.0 and 6.9 deaths per 100 000 people, respectively). Attributable age-standardized mortality rates and DALYs for alcohol and illicit drugs were highest in eastern Europe; attributable age-standardized tobacco mortality rates and DALYs were highest in Oceania. CONCLUSIONS: In 2015 alcohol use and tobacco smoking use between them cost the human population more than a quarter of a billion disability-adjusted life years, with illicit drugs costing further tens of millions. Europeans suffered proportionatel

PURPOSE: Although pharmaceutical claims are an essential data source for pharmacoepidemiological studies, these data potentially under-estimate opioid utilisation. Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the extent to which pharmaceutical claims from Australia's national medicines subsidy programs (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [PBS] and Repatriation Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits [RPBS]) under-estimate prescription-only and total national opioid utilisation across time and for different opioids. A secondary aim was to examine the impact of the 2012 policy change to record all PBS/RPBS dispensed medicines, irrespective of government subsidy, on the degree of under-estimation. METHODS: Aggregated data on Australian opioid utilisation were obtained for the 2010 to 2014 calendar years, including all single ingredient and combination opioid analgesic preparations available on prescription or over-the-counter (OTC). Total opioid utilisation (oral morphine equivalent kilogrammes) was quantified using sales data from IMS Health and compared with pharmaceutical claims data from the PBS/RPBS. RESULTS: PBS/RPBS claims data did not account for 12.4% of prescription-only opioid utilisation in 2014 and 19.1% in 2010, and 18.4% to 25.4% of total opioid use when accounting for OTC preparations. Between 2010 and 2014, 5.6% to 5.3% of buprenorphine, 8.1% to 6.3% fentanyl, 17.7% to 10.7% oxycodone, 18.4% to 11.0% tramadol, 38.4% to 21.0% hydromorphone, and 28.6% to 21.0% of prescription-only codeine utilisation were not accounted for in PBS/RPBS claims. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased capture of less expensive (under co-payment) opioid items since 2012, PBS/RPBS claims still under-estimate opioid use in Australia, with varying degrees across opioids. The estimates generated in this study allow us to better understand the degree of under-estimation and account for these in research using Australia's national pharmaceutical claims data.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of Australians initiating strong opioids and examine the factors associated with the type of opioid initiated. METHODS: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme dispensing records were extracted for a 10% sample of people who initiated a strong opioid treatment episode (buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone) between 29 September 2009 and 31 December 2013, as evidenced by the absence of a strong opioid dispensing for at least 90 days. The cohort was restricted to people with complete medicines ascertainment. Socio-demographic characteristics, previous dispensing histories and index opioid use were examined. Multinomial logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted relative risk ratios (aRRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the factors associated with the type of opioid medicine initiated, relative to oxycodone. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 125 335 people: 58.3% were female and 63.7% were aged ≥65 years. The most commonly initiated strong opioid was oxycodone (72.8%), usually 5 mg immediate-release tablets (76.1%). Compared to people aged 18-44 years, those ≥85 years were 14.18 times as likely (95% CI 12.67-15.87) to initiate morphine than oxycodone. Compared to people without a cancer treatment history, those with a cancer treatment history were 2.34 times as likely (95% CI 2.11-2.60) to initiate morphine than oxycodone. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly initiated strong opioid was oxycodone, usually at lower strengths. Those who initiated oxycodone were more likely to be younger with no previous cancer treatment history. As these are high-risk characteristics for potential harms, a judicious approach when initiating strong opioids for this group is necessary.