Using poison center exposure calls to predict prescription opioid abuse and misuse-related emergency department visits.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Prescription drug abuse is a critical problem in the USA and has been linked to more deaths than automobile accidents. Despite this growing epidemic, the USA lacks a timely early warning system. Poison centers (PCs) have the potential to act as sentinel reporting entities for prescription drug abuse and misuse due to near-real-time data reporting and abundant coverage in the USA.
METHODS
Data from the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS®) System PC program were compared with data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) from 2004 through 2010. Population rates of PC call mentions regarding abuse and misuse of prescription opioids were compared with population rates of emergency department visit mentions of the same using linear regression. Products included in the analysis were the following: buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, and oxycodone.
RESULTS
The strength of association between RADARS System PC data and DAWN emergency department visits regarding all opioids in aggregate was strong (R² = 0.81, p < 0.001). The correlations between the two programs at the drug class level also were strong for buprenorphine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone (all R² > 0.70, all p < 0.01), significant for fentanyl (p = 0.05), and moderate for morphine (p = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS
Data on prescription opioid drug abuse from the RADARS System PC program correlates well with emergency room data from DAWN. Due to timeliness of data, geographic coverage and strong associations with other warning systems, PC data can be used for sentinel reporting on prescription drug abuse and misuse in the USA.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.