Sales of over-the-counter (OTC) codeine-containing products in 31 countries, 2013-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prescribing of opioids has increased [1], but it is not known whether codeine-containing medicines sold over-the-counter (OTC) are following similar trends to prescribed opioids. Products containing codeine, an opioid related to morphine, have been associated with dependence, death, and collateral toxicity from combinations with paracetamol and ibuprofen [2,3]. However, access to granular data on OTC sales is limited. The full picture of the growing opioid problem will not be known until both prescription and OTC data on opioid sales are evaluated. Regulation of codeine-containing products varies across the world. In the UK, combination products called co-codamol, containing 8 mg of codeine (a low dose) and 500 mg of paracetamol, can be purchased without a prescription from pharmacies. However, 15 of the 28 European Union member countries do not allow codeine to be sold OTC [4]. More recently, Australia and Manitoba, Canada, changed the status of codeine-containing medicines to prescription-only [5,6]. Thus, there is building pressure to upregulate and restrict access to OTC codeine products. To the best of our knowledge, data on sales of OTC codeine medicines have not been described before. Thus, the aim of our repeat cross-sectional observational study is to describe national sales of over-the-counter (OTC) codeine-containing products purchased from pharmacies across 31 countries between 2013 and 2019. Our objectives are: 1. to determine the total volume (e.g. number of tablets) of OTC codeine-containing products purchased nationally each year, adjusted for population; 2. to determine the total public expenditure (converted to GBP, £ sterling as of 20/09/3019) of OTC codeine-containing products purchased nationally each year; and 3. to assess trends in volume and public expenditure nationally from 2013 to 2019.
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 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".