对 Domzaridou 等人的评论:认识阿片类激动剂治疗中合并处方和生活方式因素的复杂性。

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Addiction Pub Date : 2024-01-14 DOI:10.1111/add.16433
Adam Bakker, Alexander Smith, Michael Liebrenz
{"title":"对 Domzaridou 等人的评论:认识阿片类激动剂治疗中合并处方和生活方式因素的复杂性。","authors":"Adam Bakker,&nbsp;Alexander Smith,&nbsp;Michael Liebrenz","doi":"10.1111/add.16433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We read with great interest the study by Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>], which examined the risk of non-fatal overdose (NFO) in patients with opioid use disorder who were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) alongside benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, antipsychotics, antidepressants and Z-drugs. While applauding their valuable work, we note that differences in risky behaviour and lifestyles between the analysed subpopulations were not addressed.</p><p>For example, their finding that benzodiazepine co-prescribed patients have an increased weighted relative NFO risk of 1.3 (compared with other OAT-patients) seems unsurprising based on wider evidence of risk factors in OAT. It is well-recognised that people with opioid dependency who also misuse benzodiazepines are more difficult to engage in treatment and have increased risk profiles [<span>2</span>]. They are more likely to have injected recently, used borrowed needles, consumed cocaine and practised unsafe sex [<span>3</span>]. They also have more psychiatric morbidity, higher prevalence of alcohol use disorder [<span>4</span>] and more frequent contact with law enforcement [<span>5</span>].</p><p>Benzodiazepine dependence is associated with increased suicide risks, premature death and adverse childhood experiences [<span>6, 7</span>]. Notably, the drug related death-rate triples among individuals with opioid dependency if using illicit benzodiazepines [<span>8</span>] and all-cause mortality is increased too [<span>9</span>]. These cited studies all refer to illicit rather than prescribed benzodiazepines, suggesting that harm reduction programmes should not overlook benzodiazepine problems. Although illicit benzodiazepine consumption often involves chaotic use of very high doses [<span>10</span>], instalment-dispensed prescribed benzodiazepine seems to reduce risky behaviours [<span>11-13</span>].</p><p>Interestingly, the subsequent stratified analysis of the NFO risk by Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>] showed very little difference for the periods when benzodiazepine were not co-prescribed in this high-risk group, as judged by the largely overlapping confidence intervals for the periods with and without benzodiazepines (Figure 1). Regrettably, in the abstract, the stated NFO risk for co-prescribing benzodiazepines during OAT is 1.45, based on the figure from the sub-analysis, without mentioning that this did not differ significantly when benzodiazepines were not co-prescribed. This gives an exaggerated impression of the NFO risk for prescribing benzodiazepines.</p><p>That said, an intriguing result from Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>] is the increased NFO-risk for patients treated with buprenorphine in comparison with methadone when benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids were co-prescribed. This might seem counter intuitive [<span>14</span>], but one conceivable hypothesis for this could be that the more chaotic lifestyles associated with patients accessing these treatments are better stabilised by methadone than buprenorphine, given buprenorphine's inferior treatment retention [<span>15</span>]. Ultimately, in harm reduction schemes, we need to consider how best to promote healthy lifestyle changes while also recognising pharmacological interactions between the medications.</p><p><b>Adam Bakker:</b> Conceptualization; writing—original draft. <b>Alexander Smith:</b> Writing—review editing. <b>Michael Liebrenz:</b> Writing—review editing.</p><p>Not applicable.</p><p>A.B. and A.S have none to declare. M.L. has represented the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health several times in the work of the Council of Europe-International Cooperation Group on Drugs and Addictions (Pompidou Group). The authors have no other competing interests to declare. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"119 5","pages":"965-966"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.16433","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment on Domzaridou et al.: Recognising the complexities of co-prescriptions and lifestyle factors in opioid agonist treatment\",\"authors\":\"Adam Bakker,&nbsp;Alexander Smith,&nbsp;Michael Liebrenz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/add.16433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We read with great interest the study by Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>], which examined the risk of non-fatal overdose (NFO) in patients with opioid use disorder who were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) alongside benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, antipsychotics, antidepressants and Z-drugs. While applauding their valuable work, we note that differences in risky behaviour and lifestyles between the analysed subpopulations were not addressed.</p><p>For example, their finding that benzodiazepine co-prescribed patients have an increased weighted relative NFO risk of 1.3 (compared with other OAT-patients) seems unsurprising based on wider evidence of risk factors in OAT. It is well-recognised that people with opioid dependency who also misuse benzodiazepines are more difficult to engage in treatment and have increased risk profiles [<span>2</span>]. They are more likely to have injected recently, used borrowed needles, consumed cocaine and practised unsafe sex [<span>3</span>]. They also have more psychiatric morbidity, higher prevalence of alcohol use disorder [<span>4</span>] and more frequent contact with law enforcement [<span>5</span>].</p><p>Benzodiazepine dependence is associated with increased suicide risks, premature death and adverse childhood experiences [<span>6, 7</span>]. Notably, the drug related death-rate triples among individuals with opioid dependency if using illicit benzodiazepines [<span>8</span>] and all-cause mortality is increased too [<span>9</span>]. These cited studies all refer to illicit rather than prescribed benzodiazepines, suggesting that harm reduction programmes should not overlook benzodiazepine problems. Although illicit benzodiazepine consumption often involves chaotic use of very high doses [<span>10</span>], instalment-dispensed prescribed benzodiazepine seems to reduce risky behaviours [<span>11-13</span>].</p><p>Interestingly, the subsequent stratified analysis of the NFO risk by Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>] showed very little difference for the periods when benzodiazepine were not co-prescribed in this high-risk group, as judged by the largely overlapping confidence intervals for the periods with and without benzodiazepines (Figure 1). Regrettably, in the abstract, the stated NFO risk for co-prescribing benzodiazepines during OAT is 1.45, based on the figure from the sub-analysis, without mentioning that this did not differ significantly when benzodiazepines were not co-prescribed. This gives an exaggerated impression of the NFO risk for prescribing benzodiazepines.</p><p>That said, an intriguing result from Domzaridou <i>et al</i>. [<span>1</span>] is the increased NFO-risk for patients treated with buprenorphine in comparison with methadone when benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids were co-prescribed. This might seem counter intuitive [<span>14</span>], but one conceivable hypothesis for this could be that the more chaotic lifestyles associated with patients accessing these treatments are better stabilised by methadone than buprenorphine, given buprenorphine's inferior treatment retention [<span>15</span>]. Ultimately, in harm reduction schemes, we need to consider how best to promote healthy lifestyle changes while also recognising pharmacological interactions between the medications.</p><p><b>Adam Bakker:</b> Conceptualization; writing—original draft. <b>Alexander Smith:</b> Writing—review editing. <b>Michael Liebrenz:</b> Writing—review editing.</p><p>Not applicable.</p><p>A.B. and A.S have none to declare. M.L. has represented the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health several times in the work of the Council of Europe-International Cooperation Group on Drugs and Addictions (Pompidou Group). The authors have no other competing interests to declare. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Addiction\",\"volume\":\"119 5\",\"pages\":\"965-966\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.16433\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Addiction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16433\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16433","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们怀着极大的兴趣阅读了 Domzaridou 等人[1]的研究报告,该报告研究了阿片类药物使用障碍患者非致命过量(NFO)的风险,这些患者在接受阿片类药物激动剂治疗(OAT)的同时还接受苯二氮卓、加巴喷丁类药物、抗精神病药物、抗抑郁药物和 Z 类药物的治疗。我们对他们所做的宝贵工作表示赞赏,但同时也注意到,所分析的亚人群之间在危险行为和生活方式上的差异并没有得到解决。例如,他们发现,与其他 OAT 患者相比,同时服用苯二氮卓类药物的患者的加权相对 NFO 风险增加了 1.3,这一结果似乎并不出人意料,因为有更广泛的证据表明 OAT 患者存在风险因素。众所周知,滥用苯并二氮杂卓的阿片类药物依赖者更难接受治疗,风险也更高[2]。他们最近更有可能注射过阿片、使用过借用针头、吸食过可卡因和进行过不安全性行为[3]。苯二氮卓类药物依赖与自杀风险增加、过早死亡和不良童年经历有关[6, 7]。值得注意的是,如果使用非法苯二氮卓类药物,阿片类药物依赖者的药物相关死亡率会增加三倍[8],全因死亡率也会增加[9]。这些引用的研究都涉及非法而非处方苯并二氮杂卓,这表明减少危害方案不应忽视苯并二氮杂卓问题。虽然非法服用苯二氮卓往往涉及大剂量的混乱使用[10],但分期发放的处方苯二氮卓似乎可以减少危险行为[11-13]。有趣的是,Domzaridou 等人随后对 NFO 风险进行了分层分析[1],结果表明,在没有联合处方苯二氮卓的情况下,这一高风险群体的风险差异很小,这一点可以从使用和不使用苯二氮卓期间基本重叠的置信区间判断出来(图 1)。令人遗憾的是,在摘要中,根据子分析的数据,在 OAT 期间联合处方苯二氮卓类药物的 NFO 风险为 1.45,而没有提及在不联合处方苯二氮卓类药物时,该风险并无显著差异。尽管如此,Domzaridou 等人[1]得出的一个耐人寻味的结果是,与美沙酮相比,联合处方苯二氮卓或加巴喷丁类药物时,接受丁丙诺啡治疗的患者的 NFO 风险增加。这似乎有悖于直觉[14],但一个可以想象的假设是,鉴于丁丙诺啡的治疗保持率较低,美沙酮比丁丙诺啡更能稳定接受这些治疗的患者较为混乱的生活方式[15]。最终,在减低伤害计划中,我们需要考虑如何最好地促进健康生活方式的改变,同时也要认识到药物之间的药理相互作用:构思;写作-原稿。亚历山大-史密斯写作-审稿。迈克尔-利布伦茨A.B.和 A.S.无须声明。M.L.曾多次代表瑞士联邦公共卫生局参与欧洲委员会--毒品和成瘾问题国际合作小组(蓬皮杜小组)的工作。作者没有其他需要声明的利益冲突。任何观点仅代表作者本人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comment on Domzaridou et al.: Recognising the complexities of co-prescriptions and lifestyle factors in opioid agonist treatment

We read with great interest the study by Domzaridou et al. [1], which examined the risk of non-fatal overdose (NFO) in patients with opioid use disorder who were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT) alongside benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, antipsychotics, antidepressants and Z-drugs. While applauding their valuable work, we note that differences in risky behaviour and lifestyles between the analysed subpopulations were not addressed.

For example, their finding that benzodiazepine co-prescribed patients have an increased weighted relative NFO risk of 1.3 (compared with other OAT-patients) seems unsurprising based on wider evidence of risk factors in OAT. It is well-recognised that people with opioid dependency who also misuse benzodiazepines are more difficult to engage in treatment and have increased risk profiles [2]. They are more likely to have injected recently, used borrowed needles, consumed cocaine and practised unsafe sex [3]. They also have more psychiatric morbidity, higher prevalence of alcohol use disorder [4] and more frequent contact with law enforcement [5].

Benzodiazepine dependence is associated with increased suicide risks, premature death and adverse childhood experiences [6, 7]. Notably, the drug related death-rate triples among individuals with opioid dependency if using illicit benzodiazepines [8] and all-cause mortality is increased too [9]. These cited studies all refer to illicit rather than prescribed benzodiazepines, suggesting that harm reduction programmes should not overlook benzodiazepine problems. Although illicit benzodiazepine consumption often involves chaotic use of very high doses [10], instalment-dispensed prescribed benzodiazepine seems to reduce risky behaviours [11-13].

Interestingly, the subsequent stratified analysis of the NFO risk by Domzaridou et al. [1] showed very little difference for the periods when benzodiazepine were not co-prescribed in this high-risk group, as judged by the largely overlapping confidence intervals for the periods with and without benzodiazepines (Figure 1). Regrettably, in the abstract, the stated NFO risk for co-prescribing benzodiazepines during OAT is 1.45, based on the figure from the sub-analysis, without mentioning that this did not differ significantly when benzodiazepines were not co-prescribed. This gives an exaggerated impression of the NFO risk for prescribing benzodiazepines.

That said, an intriguing result from Domzaridou et al. [1] is the increased NFO-risk for patients treated with buprenorphine in comparison with methadone when benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids were co-prescribed. This might seem counter intuitive [14], but one conceivable hypothesis for this could be that the more chaotic lifestyles associated with patients accessing these treatments are better stabilised by methadone than buprenorphine, given buprenorphine's inferior treatment retention [15]. Ultimately, in harm reduction schemes, we need to consider how best to promote healthy lifestyle changes while also recognising pharmacological interactions between the medications.

Adam Bakker: Conceptualization; writing—original draft. Alexander Smith: Writing—review editing. Michael Liebrenz: Writing—review editing.

Not applicable.

A.B. and A.S have none to declare. M.L. has represented the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health several times in the work of the Council of Europe-International Cooperation Group on Drugs and Addictions (Pompidou Group). The authors have no other competing interests to declare. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信