Back

Trends in analgesia prescribing in primary care in Ireland and England between 2014 and 2022 - a repeated cross-sectional study

Mattsson, M.; Flood, M.; MacKenna, B.; Wallace, E.; Boland, F.; Kirke, C.; Walsh, M. E.; Fahey, T.; Moriarty, F.

2024-06-04 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2024.06.04.24308266 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPain is a major public health issue, and a common reason people seek medical care. Pharmacological treatments depend on the type of pain and carry different risks and benefits. The aim of this study was to examine trends in analgesic prescribing in Ireland and England between 2014 and 2022. MethodsMonthly data on medicines prescribed and dispensed in primary care were used. For Ireland, data on the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme were used, covering approximately 32% of the population. For England, data from the NHS Digital platform for all general practices were used. Outcomes were the volume of prescribed analgesic use, including rates of dispensings, costs, and standard doses (including oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) for opioids) per 1,000 population, summarised per year for each drug class/drug. ResultsIn Ireland, the rate of analgesia dispensings increased between 2014 and 2022 for most drugs. Opioid dispensings increased from 979 to 1,220 per 1,000 population, while paracetamol increased from 1,295 to 1,824. Systemic NSAIDs decreased from 781 to 734. In England, most analgesia dispensing rates decreased, with opioids decreasing from 721 to 585 per 1,000 population, paracetamol from 734 to 484, and systemic NSAIDs from 259 to 167. DiscussionSubstantially different dispensing patterns were found in Ireland and England, with higher increasing overall rates in Ireland and lower decreasing rates in England, potentially driven by the older age and lower socioeconomic status of GMS patients in Ireland. Further research to understand drivers for this higher volume of use is required.

Published in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.