ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Ten-year analgesic utilization patterns and economic implications in Portugal.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication review improves pain management and quality of life in chronic pain: a pilot randomized controlled study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Pain Management in Italian Elite Athletes: Trends in the Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Glucocorticoids, and Narcotics in Anti-Doping Reports (2013-2023).Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 10-year trends in benzodiazepine, opioid, and concurrent use in hip and knee arthroplasty: a nationwide cohort study from the Netherlands.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Pharmacology and Toxicology of Opioids-Recent Advances and New Perspectives.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ten-year analgesic utilization patterns and economic implications in Portugal.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study evaluated the 10-year consumption and economic patterns of classical analgesics, adjuvants and opioids in Portugal (2012-2022), and conducted a comparative analysis between Portugal, Spain and Denmark to explore the consumption patterns among these countries for 2022.
methodsData on sales and national health service (NHS) costs were obtained from the Portuguese National Authority of Medicines and Health Products. Sales data were converted to defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification/DDD methodology, while comparisons between Spain and Denmark were evaluated with the chi-square test, when appropriate.
resultsThe findings reveal that classical analgesics use in Portugal remained stable during the period 2012-2022, with ibuprofen being the most consumed. Adjuvants, specifically gabapentinoids, experienced an 84% increase in use, primarily attributed to pregabalin. Weak opioids, led by tramadol, witnessed a 117% rise in use, while strong opioid use, led by tapentadol, increased by 618%. Portugal presented the lowest overall opioid consumption when compared to Denmark and Spain in 2022. Economic trends indicated a heightened NHS expenditure on analgesics, primarily driven by increased opioid use. Notwithstanding, there was no significant burden on relative expenditure over the 10-year period.
conclusionsPortugal presented a major increase in both weak and strong opioid prescriptions, aligning with the trends for Spain and Denmark. The development and approval of generic medicines and vigilant market monitoring are imperative strategies for managing the escalated costs resulting from heightened consumption, particularly concerning opioids.
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.