Prescription opioid analgesic use in France: Trends and impact on morbidity–mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While data from USA and Canada demonstrate an opioid overdose epidemic, very little nation-wide European studies have been published on this topical subject. METHODS: Using a nationally representative sample of the French Claims database (>700,000 patients), the exhaustive nationwide hospital discharge database, and national mortality registry, all patients dispensed at least one prescription opioid (PO) in 2004-2017 were identified, to describe trends in PO analgesic use, shopping behaviour, opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths. Annual prevalence of PO use and shopping behaviour (≥1 day of overlapping prescriptions from ≥2 prescribers, dispensed by ≥3 pharmacies) was estimated. RESULTS: In 2004-2017, the annual prevalence of weak opioid use codeine, tramadol and opium rose by 150%, 123%, and 244%, respectively (p < 0.05). Strong opioid use increased from 0.54% to 1.1% (+104%, p < 0.05), significantly for oxycodone (+1950%). Strong opioid use in chronic noncancer pain rose by 88% (p < 0.05) and 1180% for oxycodone. Opioid shopping increased from 0.50% to 0.67% (+34%, p < 0.05), associated with higher mortality risk HR = 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-6.4]. Opioid-related hospitalizations increased from 15 to 40 per 1,000,000 population (+167%, 2000-2017), and opioid-related deaths from 1.3 to 3.2 per 1,000,000 population (+146%, 2000-2015). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a first European approach to a nationwide estimation with complete access to several national registries. In 2004-2017 in France, PO use excluding dextropropoxyphene more than doubled. The increase in oxycodone and fentanyl use, and nontrivial increasing trend in opioid-related morbidity-mortality should prompt authorities to closely monitor PO consumption in order to prevent alarming increases in opioid-related morbidity-mortality. SIGNIFICANCE: In 2004-2017, prescription opioid use in France at least doubled and oxycodone use increased particularly, associated with a nontrivial increase in opioid-related morbidity-mortality. Although giving no indication for an 'opioid epidemic,' these findings call for proper monitoring of opioid use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".