4.5 Article

Trends in the Prescription of Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists from 2009 to 2020: A Retrospective Study Using Electronic Healthcare Record Data of a University Hospital in Japan

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9121724

关键词

hypnotics; anxiolytics; benzodiazepines; prescriptions; Japan; electronic health records

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed electronic healthcare records data from a University Hospital in Japan and found that the proportion of BZRAs prescribed within those prescribed hypnotics or anxiolytics has been decreasing in recent years, especially in patients aged 65 and above, with a more significant decrease seen in patients aged 75 and above.
In recent years, the prescription trends of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) have not been investigated in Japan despite the publication of guidelines that promote cautious use of BZRAs. The prescription trend of BZRAs was assessed using the electronic healthcare records data of a University Hospital in Japan. The data from April 2009 to March 2021 were used. The following three types of outcomes were set: the proportion of patients who were prescribed with BZRAs within those prescribed hypnotics or anxiolytics; the mean number of the types of prescribed BZRAs, and the mean average daily doses of BZRAs. The same analysis was conducted for benzodiazepines (BZDs) and non-benzodiazepines (Z-drugs). As a result, we found that the proportions of patients prescribed BZRAs within those prescribed hypnotics or anxiolytics began to decrease, particularly from 2015 for patients aged <75 years and those aged >= 75 years. Further, the degree of decrease was larger in patients aged >= 75 years. The proportion for BZDs decreased particularly in the study period, and the proportion for Z-drugs also began to decrease approximately from 2016 in patients aged >= 75 years. The results suggest a possibility that guidelines affected the decreased prescriptions of BZRAs.

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

4.5
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