MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200361087 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00254-1

Causes of death among people who used illicit opioids in England, 2001–18: a matched cohort study

2021· article· en· W4200361087 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan Lewer, Thomas D. Brothers, Naomi Van Hest, Matthew Hickman, Adam Holland, Prianka Padmanathan, Paola Zaninotto

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCohortPoisson regressionHeroinCohort studyOpioidMedical prescriptionCause of deathDemographyPsychiatryInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In many countries, the average age of people who use illicit opioids, such as heroin, is increasing. This has been suggested to be a reason for increasing numbers of opioid-related deaths seen in surveillance data. We aimed to describe causes of death among people who use illicit opioids in England, how causes of death have changed over time, and how they change with age. METHODS: In this matched cohort study, we studied patients in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with recorded illicit opioid use (defined as aged 18-64 years, with prescriptions or clinical observations that indicate use of illicit opioids) in England between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2018. We also included a comparison group, matched (1:3) for age, sex, and general practice with no records of illicit opioid use before cohort entry. Dates and causes of death were obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics. The cohort exit date was the earliest of date of death or Oct 30, 2018. We described rates of death and calculated cause-specific standardised mortality ratios. We used Poisson regression to estimate associations between age, calendar year, and cause-specific death. FINDINGS: We collected data for 106 789 participants with a history of illicit opioid use, with a median follow-up of 8·7 years (IQR 4·3-13·5), and 320 367 matched controls with a median follow-up of 9·5 years (5·0-14·4). 13 209 (12·4%) of 106 789 participants in the exposed cohort had died, with a standardised mortality ratio of 7·72 (95% CI 7·47-7·97). The most common causes of death were drug poisoning (4375 [33·1%] of 13 209), liver disease (1272 [9·6%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 681 [5·2%]), and suicide (645 [4·9%]). Participants with a history of illicit opioid use had higher mortality rates than the comparison group for all causes of death analysed, with highest standardised mortality ratios being seen for viral hepatitis (103·5 [95% CI 61·7-242·6]), HIV (16·7 [9·5-34·9]), and COPD (14·8 [12·6-17·6]). In the exposed cohort, at age 20 years, the rate of fatal drug poisonings was 271 (95% CI 230-313) per 100 000 person-years, accounting for 59·9% of deaths at this age, whereas the mortality rate due to non-communicable diseases was 31 (16-45) per 100 000 person-years, accounting for 6·8% of deaths at this age. Deaths due to non-communicable diseases increased more rapidly with age (1155 [95% CI 880-1431] deaths per 100 000 person-years at age 50 years; accounting for 52·0% of deaths at this age) than did deaths due to drug poisoning (507 (95% CI 452-562) per 100 000 person-years at age 50 years; accounting for 22·8% of deaths at this age). Mirroring national surveillance data, the rate of fatal drug poisonings in the exposed cohort increased from 345 (95% CI 299-391) deaths per 100 000 person-years in 2010-12 to 534 (468-600) per 100 000 person-years in 2016-18; an increase of 55%, a trend that was not explained by ageing of participants. INTERPRETATION: People who use illicit opioids have excess risk of death across all major causes of death we analysed. Our findings suggest that population ageing is unlikely to explain the increasing number of fatal drug poisonings seen in surveillance data, but is associated with many more deaths due to non-communicable diseases. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207