Trends in Prescription of Stimulants and Narcoleptic Drugs in Switzerland: Longitudinal Health Insurance Claims Analysis for the Years 2014-2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stimulants are potent treatments for central hypersomnolence disorders or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders/attention deficit disorders but concerns have been raised about their potential negative consequences and their increasing prescription rates. Objective: We aimed to describe stimulant prescription trends in Switzerland from 2014 to 2021. Second, we aimed to analyze the characteristics of individuals who received stimulant prescriptions in 2021 and investigate the link between stimulant prescriptions and hospitalization rates in 2021, using hospitalization as a potential indicator of adverse health outcomes. Methods: Longitudinal and cross-sectional data from a large Swiss health care insurance were analyzed from all insureds older than 6 years. The results were extrapolated to the Swiss general population. We identified prescriptions for methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, modafinil, and sodium oxybate and calculated prevalences of each drug prescription over the period from 2014 to 2021. For 2021 we provide detailed information on the prescribers and evaluate the association of stimulant prescription and the number and duration of hospitalization using logistic regression models. Results: We observed increasing prescription rates of all stimulants in all age groups from 2014 to 2021 (0.55% to 0.81%, 43,848 to 66,113 insureds with a prescription). In 2021, 37.1% (28,057 prescriptions) of the medications were prescribed by psychiatrists, followed by 36.1% (n=27,323) prescribed by general practitioners and 1% (n=748) by neurologists. Only sodium oxybate, which is highly specific for narcolepsy treatment, was most frequently prescribed by neurologists (27.8%, 37 prescriptions). Comorbid psychiatric disorders were common in patients receiving stimulants. Patients hospitalized in a psychiatric institution were 5.3 times (odds ratio 5.3, 95% CI 4.63-6.08, P<.001) more likely to have a stimulant prescription than those without hospitalization. There were no significant associations between stimulant prescription and the total length of inpatient stay (odds ratio 1, 95% CI 1-1, P=.13). Conclusions: The prescription of stimulant medication in Switzerland increased slightly but continuously over years, but at lower rates compared to the estimated prevalence of central hypersomnolence disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders/attention deficit disorders. Most stimulants are prescribed by psychiatrists, closely followed by general practitioners. The increased odds for hospitalization to psychiatric institutions for stimulant receivers reflects the severity of disease and the higher psychiatric comorbidities in these patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".