3.8 Article

Evolving Trends and Economic Burden of Benzodiazepine Use: Insights From a 10-Year Predictive Model

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH REGIONAL ISSUES
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 70-73

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.10.005

关键词

benzodiazepines; consumption; dependence; deprescribing; expenditure; prescribing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in Croatia for various conditions, but long-term use is associated with negative side effects.
Objectives: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are widely prescribed in Croatia to treat anxiety, insomnia, mood disorders, and epileptic seizures. Long-term BZD use is associated with memory loss, Alzheimer's disease, dependence, addiction, falls in elderly populations, and increased traffic accident risk.Methods: Drug consumption data were obtained from the Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia website. Autoregressive integrated moving average models, constructed using R programming language, forecasted diazepam, alprazolam, and overall BZD utilization and financial costs at a national level over 10 years.Results: BZD consumption increased by up to 18.6% between 2012 and 2020. During the same period, diazepam utilization rose by 29.1%, and alprazolam consumption increased by 19.4%. Our model predicts that, by 2032, BZD, diazepam, and alprazolam utilization will increase substantially. The total projected financial expenditure for BZDs in 2032 is estimated at 14.22 million euros, with diazepam and alprazolam expenditures at 7.39 and 4.12 million euros, respectively. These increases will result in significant growth in healthcare spending and a rise in adverse effects related to long-term use.Conclusions: National healthcare decision makers should consider implementing regulatory and legislative measures to quantify, specify, and limit monthly BZD use for each patient. This would help control the negative side effects of prolonged BZD use while continuing to provide treatment for patients who genuinely need it.

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

3.8
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