Sök artiklar i SveMed+

Observera: SveMed+ upphör att uppdateras!



Bruk av benzodiazepiner og z-hypnotika blant pasienter i LAR
Engelsk titel: The use of benzodiazepines and newer hypnotics among OMT patients Läs online Författare: Grönnerud, Lise ; Mahic, Milada ; Bramness, Jörgen G Språk: Nor Antal referenser: 20 Dokumenttyp: Artikel UI-nummer: 14113783

Tidskrift

Norsk Farmaceutisk Tidsskrift 2014;122(10)53-7 ISSN 0029-1935 KIBs bestånd av denna tidskrift Denna tidskrift är expertgranskad (Peer-Reviewed)

Sammanfattning

Purpose The purpose of this study was to detect changes in use of benzodiazepines and z-hypnotics among patients in opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) after the introduction of national clinical ­guidelines for OMT patients in 2010. Materials and methods Data were obtained from the ­Norwegian Prescription Database. We studied individuals in OMT in a period before the introduction of the ­guidelines (2008-2009) - period 1, and/or after the introduction of the guidelines (2010-2011) - period 2. Patients were followed for 12 months after their first OMT dispensing. The results are presented as the one-year prevalence and amount of drug ­measured as sum of defined daily doses of benzodiazepines and z-hypnotics together, or divided into anxiolytics and hypnotics in the period before and after the introduction of the guidelines. Results There was an increase in use of ­benzodiazepines and z-hypnotics from the 1st to the 2nd period. There was no gender differences in prevalence and prevalence increased with age. There were large differences in prevalence between different counties during the 1st period (from 10 to 69 %). This variation was reduced in the 2nd period, by an increase in the prevalence in counties with the lowest prevalence. More than 30% of those who were prescribed hypnotics and anxiolytics were heavy users defined as individuals dispensed > 400 defined daily doses. There was a high degree of co- medication between different types of benzodiazepines and / or z-hypnotics. Conclusion There has been a slight increase in use from the 1st to the 2nd period. Prevalence differences between counties were reduced. This suggests that the guidelines have served their purpose regarding to reduction in regional differences. This was however due to an increase in prevalence in the lower using counties.