4.6 Article

Use of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in Manitoba, Canada: A whole-population cohort study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257025

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Manitoba
  2. Manitoba Government Department of Health and Seniors Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that despite established evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder, these medications remain profoundly underutilized in Canada. Only 1.3% of individuals with alcohol use disorder received pharmacotherapy, with most prescriptions coming from family physicians in urban areas and psychiatrists.
Objective Update the evidence on use of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in a Canadian population. Methods Using whole-population administrative data from Manitoba, Canada, we identified all residents age 12+ who were first diagnosed with alcohol use disorder between April 1, 1996 and March 31, 2015, and compared characteristics of those who filled a prescription for naltrexone, acamprosate or disulfiram at least once during that period to those who did not fill a prescription for an alcohol use disorder medication. Results Only 1.3% of individuals with alcohol use disorder received pharmacotherapy (62.3% of prescriptions were for naltrexone, 39.4% for acamprosate, 7.5% for disulfiram). Most prescriptions came from family physicians in urban alcohol use disorder (53.6%) and psychiatrists (22.3%). Individuals were more likely to fill a prescription for alcohol use disorder medication if they lived in an urban vs rural environment (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.83-2.77) or had a mood/anxiety disorder diagnosis vs no diagnosis (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.98-2.90) in the five years before being diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. Conclusion Despite established evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder, these medications continue to be profoundly underutilized in Canada.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据