ArticleJournal of pain research2015
Voluntary warnings and the limits of good prescribing behavior: the case for de-adoption of meperidine.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of opioid prescriptions in Taiwan (2008-2018).Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Impact of cytochrome P450 variation on meperidineXenobiotica; the fate of foreign compounds in biological systems · 2020Article
- Safe medication management and use of narcotics in a Joint Commission International-accredited academic medical center hospital in the People's Republic of China.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeperidine (pethidine) offers little to no therapeutic advantage over other opioids, may be more prone to abuse, and produces a neurotoxic metabolite with a long half-life. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) issued warnings in 2004 and 2005 suggesting that meperidine be avoided, and when used, it should be in limited doses (<600 mg/24 h) and for a limited duration (<48 hours). Hospitals have responded to these warnings, but much less is known about meperidine prescribing in the community setting. This study examined the potential impact of ISMP warnings on the prescribing of meperidine using time series analysis.
methodsA population-based longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted to examine oral meperidine utilization among persons 16 years of age and older in Manitoba, Canada, between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2014. Amounts of meperidine were expressed using defined daily doses (DDDs), the equivalent of 400 mg of meperidine per day. The number of meperidine prescriptions and users per quarter were determined and analyzed using regression analysis.
resultsThere were 49,063 prescriptions for 442,641 DDDs of meperidine dispensed to 9,374 distinct users. The number of DDDs of meperidine per 1,000 persons peaked in the second quarter of 2003 at 11.75, and then dropped to a low of 5.36 by 2014. This represented a marked decline in the numbers of users and prescriptions over the study period. The piecewise regression model revealed a significant breakpoint in the last quarter of 2004 (F (3, 48)=337.00, P<0.0001). In contrast to these findings, among the remaining users, there was an increase in the amount of meperidine per prescription (increase of 0.34 DDDs/prescription/year; F(1, 50)=434, P<0.0001, R (2)=0.89) and the amount of meperidine per user (increase of 1.17 DDDs/user/year; F(1, 50)=653.5, P<0.0001, R (2)=0.93).
conclusionFollowing the ISMP warnings, meperidine use dramatically declined. Unfortunately, the remaining users of meperidine are using more meperidine and receiving more meperidine in each prescription. This pattern of results suggests that there may be limits to voluntary safety warnings. Policy action such as removal of medication insurance coverage may represent a logical next step to reverse or de-adopt meperidine and further enhance patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.