MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3155932166 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.21.21255888

Sales of over-the-counter products containing codeine in 31 countries, 2013-2019: a retrospective observational study

2021· preprint· en· W3155932166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgia C. Richards, Jeffrey K Aronson, Brian MacKenna, Ben Goldacre, Richard Hobbs, Carl Heneghan

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR School for Primary Care ResearchOxford Health NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedical prescriptionPopulationCodeineOver-the-counterGeographyObservational studyBusinessDemographyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Opioid prescribing trends have been investigated in many countries. However, the patterns of over-the-counter purchases of opioids without a prescription, such as codeine combinations, are mostly unknown. Objective We aimed to assess national sales and expenditure trends of over-the-counter codeine-containing products purchased in countries with available data over six years. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study using electronic point-of-sale data from the human data science company, IQVIA , for countries that had such data, including Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. We calculated annual mean sales (dosage units per 1000 of the population) and public expenditure (GBP, £ per 1000 population) for each country between April 2013 and March 2019 and adjusted for data coverage reported by IQVIA . We quantified changes over time and the types of products sold. Results 31.5 billion dosage units (adjusted: 42.8 billion dosage units) of codeine, costing £2.55 billion (adjusted: £3.68 billion), were sold over-the-counter in 31 countries between April 2013 and March 2019. Total adjusted sales increased by 11% (3911 dosage units/1000 population in 2013 to 4358 in 2019) and adjusted public expenditure increased by 72% (£263/1000 in 2013 to £451/1000 in 2019). Sales were not equally distributed; South Africa sold the most (36 mean dosage units/person), followed by Ireland (30 mean dosage units/person), France (20 mean dosage units/person), the UK (17.2 mean dosage units/person), and Latvia (16.8 mean dosage units/person). Types of products (n=569) and formulations (n=12) sold varied. Conclusion In many parts of the world, substantial numbers of people may be purchasing and consuming codeine from over-the-counter products. Clinicians should ask patients about their use of over-the-counter products, and public health measures are required to improve the collection of sales data and the safety of such products. Study protocol pre-registration https://osf.io/ay4mc The pre-print version of this work is available on medRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.21.21255888 Key points Codeine is one of the most accessible pain medicines available worldwide, yet data on its use as an over-the-counter drug has been limited. We found that total sales and expenditure of over-the-counter products containing codeine increased from April 2013 to March 2019, but there was substantial variation in mean sales between countries and the coverage of data reported by IQVIA , with South Africa, France, Japan, the UK, and Poland accounting for 90% of all sales data. In countries with access to over-the-counter codeine products, sales data should be collected, made available, and reviewed to inform regulatory decisions and public health measures to ensure safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→