Incident opioid drug use among older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of the present study was to describe the scope, pattern and patient characteristics associated with incident opioid use among older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study using Ontario, Canada, healthcare administrative data. Study participants were individuals aged 66 years and older with physician-diagnosed COPD, identified using a validated algorithm, who were not receiving palliative care. We examined the incidence of oral opioid receipt between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2012, as well as several patterns of incident opioid drug use. RESULTS: Among 107,109 community-dwelling and 16,207 long-term care resident older adults with COPD, 72,962 (68.1%) and 8811 (54.4%), respectively, received an incident opioid drug during the observation period. Among long-term care residents, multiple opioid dispensings (8.8%), dispensings for >30 days' duration (up to 19.8%), second dispensings (35-43%) and early refills (24.2%) were observed. Incident opioid dispensing was also observed to occur during COPD exacerbations (6.9% among all long-term care residents; 18.1% among long-term care residents with frequent exacerbations). These same patterns of incident opioid use occurred among community-dwelling individuals, but with relatively lower frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: New opioid use was high among older adults with COPD. Potential safety concerns are raised by the degree and pattern of new opioid use, but further studies are needed to evaluate if adverse events are associated with opioid drug use in this older and respiratory-vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".