4.3 Article

The association between the availability of over the counter codeine and the prevalence of non-medical use

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 78, 期 6, 页码 1011-1018

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03158-1

关键词

Codeine; Opioids; Prescription drugs; OTC drugs; Survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the prevalence of non-medical use of codeine in Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, and suggests that the availability of over-the-counter (OTC) codeine may be associated with higher levels of non-medical use.
Purpose To investigate the prevalence of non-medical use (NMU) of codeine in Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK and whether availability of OTC codeine has any association with NMU of the drug. Methods Data collected in the online Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs, in surveys launched in the second half of 2018 from (Germany (n = 14,969), Italy, (n = 9974), Spain (n = 9912) and the UK (n = 9819) were analysed. For each survey, the estimated prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) of respondents reporting NMU of prescription and/or OTC codeine within the last 12 months were calculated and compared. Results The prevalence of last 12-month NMU in Spain was 12.6% (95% CI 11.7-13.6) for prescription codeine, 6.3% (5.6-7.0) for OTC codeine and 16.1% (15.1-17.3) for any codeine (prescription and/or OTC). The prevalence of last 12-month NMU in the UK was 5.4% (4.9-5.8) for prescription codeine, 4.5% (4.1-5.0) for OTC codeine and 8.3% (7.8-8.9) for any codeine (prescription and/or OTC). The prevalence of last 12-month NMU for prescription codeine was 2.1% (1.9-2.4) in Germany and 1.9% (1.7-2.2) in Italy. Conclusion The prevalence of last 12-month NMU of any codeine product is approximately eight times greater in Spain and four times greater in the UK compared to Germany and Italy where the drug is only available by prescription. While other factors may contribute, these findings suggest that availability of codeine OTC is associated with greater NMU.

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

4.3
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