Elisabeth Frauger

Impact of a prescription monitoring program on doctor-shopping for high dosage buprenorphine†

Doctor‐shopping (simultaneous use of several physicians by a patient) is one of the most frequent ways of diversion for prescription drugs. A specific method was used to assess the evolution of doctor‐shopping for High Dosage Buprenorphine (HDB) in a French region from 2000 to 2005 and the impact of a prescription monitoring program for HDB implemented in 2004.

Patterns of methylphenidate use and assessment of its abuse and diversion in two French administrative areas using a proxy of deviant behaviour determined from a reimbursement database: main trends from 2005 to 2008.

AbstractBackground: Methylphenidate is a psychostimulant drug indicated for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Its abuse and diversion have been previously described in specific populations, such as students; however, few studies investigating abuse and diversion among the overall population are available.n Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe patterns of methylphenidate use and to explore the magnitude of its abuse and diversion in two French administrative areas using data from a reimbursement database. A proxy of ‘deviant behaviour’ was used for the abuse and diversion of methylphenidate, defined using the following parameters: total number of defined daily doses (DDDs) of methylphenidate dispensed; number of different pharmacies seen for dispensing of methylphenidate; number of prescribers consulted for a prescription of methylphenidate; and number of dispensings of methylphenidate. Data from the reimbursement database were analysed by clustering methods. These data were assessed from 2005 to 2008.n Method: The French General Health Insurance System (GHIS) database was used to obtain data on methylphenidate use in two French administrative areas. Individuals affiliated to the GHIS who had a prescription for methylphenidate reimbursed between 1 January and 31 March of 4 selected years (2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008) were included. After the first dispensing of methylphenidate for these individuals, all their dispensings (including methylphenidate and other psychoactive drugs) were monitored over a 9-month period. Following a descriptive analysis, a clustering method was used to identify different subgroups of subjects according to the methylphenidate consumer profile characteristics.n Results: With regard to the number of patients who had a dispensing for methylphenidate during the first quarter of the year, an 84% increase was observed between 2005 (n = 640) and 2008 (n= 1175). The clustering method identified two subgroups. One of them was characterized by a higher number of dispensings, different prescribers and pharmacies and a greater total dispensed quantity, suggesting a deviant behaviour and, thus, possible abuse and diversion of methylphenidate. These subjects were older (aged 35.4 ± 11.3 years) and were more frequently patients receiving benzodiazepines, antidepressants, antipsychotics and maintenance opioid treatment. The proportion of subjects with a deviant behaviour increased from 0.5% in 2005 to 2% in 2007 and then decreased to 1.2% in 2008.n Conclusion: This method was able to assess the magnitude of methylphenidate abuse liability and to follow its evolution. The decrease in methylphenidate abuse and diversion seen between 2007 and 2008 can be explained by the enactment in April 2008 of specific regulations for prescription drugs (such as methylphenidate) that are deemed by the French government to have the potential for misuse; these regulations require the establishment of a ‘contract of care’ between the GHIS, prescriber and patient.

Which psychoactive prescription drugs are illegally obtained and through which ways of acquisition? About OPPIDUM survey.

The objective of the study was to determine which psychoactive prescription drugs are illegally obtained and through which ways of acquisition. OPPIDUM is an annual national study. It is based on specialized care centers that included subjects presenting a drug dependency or under opiate maintenance treatment. All their psychoactive substances consumed are reported. This work focuses on the different ways of acquisition specially the illegal ways of acquisition (bought on the street, forged prescription, stolen, given, internet). For each medication illegally obtained, a ratio has been calculated (number of illegal acquisitions divided by the number of described acquisitions). In 2008, 5542 subjects have been included and have described the consumption of 11u2003027 substances including 63.8% of prescription drugs. Among them, 11% were illegally obtained. The different illegal acquisition ways were ‘street market’ (77.6%), ‘gift’ (16.6%), ‘theft’ (2.3%), ‘forged prescription’ (2.3%), and ‘internet’ (0.7%). The third first drugs illegally obtained were high dosage buprenorphine, methadone, and clonazepam. Some prescription drugs, less consumed, have an important ratio of illegal acquisition like ketamine, flunitrazepam, morphine, trihexyphenidyl, or methylphenidate. This study confirms that theft, forged prescription and internet are few used and permits to highlight diversion of prescription drugs. It is important to inform healthcare professionals on the different prescription drugs that are illegally obtained.

Estimated magnitude of diversion and abuse of opioids relative to benzodiazepines in France

INTRODUCTIONnPrescription drug abuse is a major concern in several countries. France appears to be particularly prone to the abuse of opiate maintenance treatment (OMT) opioids and benzodiazepines (BZD), whereas the abuse of opioid analgesics (OA) is less commonly reported. To estimate the extent of psychoactive drug abuse, the French drug agency relies on different methods measuring various diversion indicators used as proxies for the detection of abuse/misuse: suspicion of abuse/dependence, illegal acquisition by patients seen in specialized care centers, prescription forgery and doctor shopping. The main objectives of the present study are to analyse the abuse and diversion of opioids (both OA and OMT), in comparison with those of BZDs, through the concurrent use of three different data sources.nnnMETHODSnDiversion and abuse of opioids were analysed using indicators of abuse and diversion derived from three data sources over the period 2006-2008. Then, opioids were compared to BZDs for the year 2008 using the same indicators.nnnRESULTSnThe analysis suggests that BZDs are more commonly dispensed than OAs and OMTs but that abuse and diversion are related mainly to OMT (particularly to buprenorphine), morphine and BZDs and less to OAs (except for morphine).nnnCONCLUSIONnThis study presents an original approach, based on the use of multiple data sources, to evaluate and compare the estimated abuse and diversion of opioids and benzodiazepines. It provides health authorities with a global, comparative and summarized overall view of the importance of different patterns of diversion and abuse for different prescription drugs.

Evidence of clonazepam abuse liability: results of the tools developed by the French Centers for Evaluation and Information on Pharmacodependence (CEIP) network

Recent observations suggest the existence of clonazepam abuse. To determine its importance in France, a quantitative and systematic synthesis of all clonazepam data of several epidemiological tools of the Centers for Evaluation and Information on Pharmacodependence (CEIP) network has been performed in comparison with data on others benzodiazepines (BZD). Data on clonazepam and other BZD have been analysed from different epidemiological tools: OSIAP survey that identifies drugs obtained by means of falsified prescriptions, Observation of Illegal Drugs and Misuse of Psychotropic Medications (OPPIDUM) survey that describes modalities of use and data from regional French health reimbursement system. In OSIAP survey, the proportion of clonazepam falsified prescriptions among all BZD falsified prescriptions increased. During the 2006 OPPIDUM survey, the analysis of the BZD modalities of use highlights clonazepam abuse liability (for example 23% of illegal acquisition), in second rank after flunitrazepam. Studies based on data from the French health reimbursed system show that 1.5% of subjects with clonazepam dispensing had a deviant behaviour. Among BZD, clonazepam has the second most important doctor‐shopping indicator (3%) after flunitrazepam. All these data provide some arguments in favour of clonazepam abuse liability in real life and the necessity to reinforce its monitoring.

Which indicators can public health authorities use to monitor prescription drug abuse and evaluate the impact of regulatory measures? Controlling High Dosage Buprenorphine abuse

BACKGROUNDnTwo methods have been recently developed from a drug reimbursement database to provide useful indicators for public health authorities concerning the abuse potential of psychotropic drugs. The doctor-shopping indicator (DSI) measures the proportion of the drug obtained by doctor shopping among the overall quantity of the drug reimbursed and the clustering method reveals subgroups of deviant patients.nnnOBJECTIVEnThe objective of the study was to analyze and compare indicators resulting from these two methods, applied to High Dosage Buprenorphine (HDB) (a product well-known to be diverted in France), in order to determine which public health authorities needs they answer.nnnDATA ANALYSISnThe patients with reimbursed HDB were grouped using the clustering method in terms of drug dispensations characteristics over a nine month period. The characteristics of the resulting subgroups, including their DSI, were then compared.nnnRESULTSn4787 Patients (73.4%) had no measurable doctor-shopping behaviour. But the comparison of the two methods demonstrated that the more a patients profile was characterized by deviant behavior, the higher was the DSI: from 0.4% in a subgroup with a median profile to 72% in a subgroup with a deviant profile.nnnCONCLUSIONnThese two methods are useful surveillance tools for public health authorities: the clustering method may help devise pertinent intervention strategies to reduce prescription drug abuse while the DSI method provides quantitative information demonstrating whether these strategies are useful. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using these two methods as useful indicators for public health authorities.

Misuse of buprenorphine maintenance treatment since introduction of its generic forms: OPPIDUM survey

The purpose of the study was to compare, using data from Observation of Illicit Psychotropic Substances or Non‐medical Used Medications (OPPIDUM) surveys, first, the profile of buprenorphine users and their modalities of buprenorphine use from 2006 to 2008 and, second, two subgroups: brand‐name and generic buprenorphine users in 2008.

Assessment of abuse of tianeptine from a reimbursement database using ‘doctor-shopping’ as an indicator

Doctor‐shopping is a patient behaviour characterized by simultaneous consultations of several physicians during the same period. Some case reports have described an abuse of tianeptine, an atypical antidepressant. Our objective was to assess the extent of abuse of this drug with a method quantifying doctor‐shopping in comparison with other antidepressants and benzodiazepines (BZD). All dispensations of antidepressants and BZD during the year 2005 in a French area of 4.5 million inhabitants were extracted from a reimbursement database. For each patient, two quantities were computed: quantity dispensed and obtained by doctor‐shopping. Tianeptine and other drugs were compared using their doctor‐shopping indicator (DSI), defined as the percentage of drug obtained by doctor‐shopping among dispensed quantity; 410u2003525 patients received at least one antidepressant dispensation during the year 2005. Tianeptine was the sixth most dispensed antidepressant. The DSI of tianeptine was 2.0%, ranking it first among antidepressant (the second being mianserine with a DSI of 1%). Flunitrazepam has the highest DSI (30.2%), the DSI of the five following BZD (clonazepam, zolpidem, oxazepam, diazepam, bromazepam) range from 3.0% to 2.0%. Tianeptine is associated with higher DSI, compared with other antidepressants, suggesting that it may be subject to abuse in the population. Moreover, its DSI as a measure of diversion is similar to the DSI of diazepam or bromazepam.