Dataset Information

Impact of policy changes on the provision of naloxone by pharmacies in Ontario, Canada: a population-based time-series analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

In June 2016, the Ontario, Canada government implemented the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies (ONPP), authorizing pharmacists to provide injectable naloxone kits at no charge to all Ontario residents. In March 2018, the program was amended to include intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card to the dispensing pharmacist. We examined whether these changes increased naloxone dispensing through the ONPP.

Design

Population-based time-series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models.

Setting

Ontario, Canada.

Participants

All Ontario residents between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2020.

Measurements

Monthly rates of pharmacy naloxone dispensing.

Findings

Overall, 199 484 individuals were dispensed a naloxone kit during the study period. In the main analysis, the rate of pharmacy naloxone dispensing increased by 65.1% following program changes (55.6-91.8 kits per 100 000 population between February 2018 and May 2018; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, naloxone dispensing increased among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) (3374.9-7264.2 kits per 100 000 OAT recipients; P = 0.04) among individuals receiving other prescription opioids (192.8-381.8 kits per 100 000 population prescribed opioids; P < 0.01), among individuals with past opioid exposure (134.7-205.6 kits per 100 000 population with past opioid exposure; P < 0.01) and in urban centers (56.2-91.4 kits per 100 000 population; P < 0.01). We did not observe a clear impact on pharmacy-dispensed naloxone to individuals with no or unknown opioid exposure (34.4-39.3 kits per 100 000 population with no/unknown opioid exposure; P = 0.42) and in rural regions (50.4-97.2 kits per 100 000 population; P = 0.09).

Conclusions

Changes to the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies to add intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card appeared to increase pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing uptake in Ontario, Canada, particularly among individuals at high risk of inadvertent opioid overdose.

SUBMITTER: Antoniou T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine.ResultsIn 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab).InterpretationPolicies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

Project description:BackgroundNews media coverage of antimask protests, COVID-19 conspiracies, and pandemic politicization has overemphasized extreme views but has done little to represent views of the general public. Investigating the public's response to various pandemic restrictions can provide a more balanced assessment of current views, allowing policy makers to craft better public health messages in anticipation of poor reactions to controversial restrictions.ObjectiveUsing data from social media, this infoveillance study aims to understand the changes in public opinion associated with the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions (eg, business and school closures, regional lockdown differences, and additional public health restrictions, such as social distancing and masking).MethodsCOVID-19-related tweets in Ontario (n=1,150,362) were collected based on keywords between March 12 and October 31, 2020. Sentiment scores were calculated using the VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner) algorithm for each tweet to represent its negative to positive emotion. Public health restrictions were identified using government and news media websites. Dynamic regression models with autoregressive integrated moving average errors were used to examine the association between public health restrictions and changes in public opinion over time (ie, collective attention, aggregate positive sentiment, and level of disagreement), controlling for the effects of confounders (ie, daily COVID-19 case counts, holidays, and COVID-19-related official updates).ResultsIn addition to expected direct effects (eg, business closures led to decreased positive sentiment and increased disagreements), the impact of restrictions on public opinion was contextually driven. For example, the negative sentiment associated with business closures was reduced with higher COVID-19 case counts. While school closures and other restrictions (eg, masking, social distancing, and travel restrictions) generated increased collective attention, they did not have an effect on aggregate sentiment or the level of disagreement (ie, sentiment polarization). Partial (ie, region-targeted) lockdowns were associated with better public response (ie, higher number of tweets with net positive sentiment and lower levels of disagreement) compared to province-wide lockdowns.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of a rapid and flexible method of evaluating the public response to pandemic restrictions using near real-time social media data. This information can help public health practitioners and policy makers anticipate public response to future pandemic restrictions and ensure adequate resources are dedicated to addressing increases in negative sentiment and levels of disagreement in the face of scientifically informed, but controversial, restrictions.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose codeine products can be purchased without a prescription in most of Canada. We explored trends in the purchasing of these products across the Canadian provinces from 2014 to 2019, evaluating the impact of Health Canada's 2016 announcement of a proposed regulatory change and the 2017 opening of a 60-day public comment period, as well as the impact of Manitoba's 2016 policy change requiring a prescription for the purchase of all codeine products in that province.MethodsWe evaluated population-adjusted monthly purchasing of codeine products from January 2014 to October 2019 using the IQVIA Canadian Drug Store and Hospital Purchases Audit database, stratified by province and over-the-counter (OTC) status. The primary outcomes were change in the monthly volume of low-dose codeine purchased after the 2016 federal regulatory proposal and the 2017 period of public comment across the provinces. Our secondary analysis was the impact of Manitoba's policy change in February 2016 requiring a prescription for low-dose codeine. We conducted a time-series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models.ResultsOver the study period, 24 120 kg of codeine (3.025 billion units) and 937 867 kg of acetaminophen were sold as OTC, low-dose codeine products across the Canadian provinces. Health Canada's 2016 announcement did not significantly affect OTC codeine purchasing (p = 0.57). The initiation of a 60-day public comment period was associated with a roughly 44% decrease in OTC codeine purchasing (p = 0.03). In Manitoba, purchasing of the same codeine formulations decreased after rescheduling in February 2016 (p < 0.001). We observed no significant change in the rate of purchasing of higher dose codeine formulations in response to scheduling changes in Manitoba (p = 0.22).InterpretationAlthough Health Canada's 2016 announcement of a proposed regulatory change did not appear to have an effect on OTC codeine purchasing nationally, the 60-day comment period was associated with a decrease in purchasing. Further, Manitoba's 2016 policy change was associated with a significant and sustained decrease in the overall volume of codeine purchased. Given the potential risks of codeine dependence and acetaminophen toxicity with these products, a national rescheduling strategy should be considered.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the availability of naloxone in community pharmacies and examine differences in naloxone availability across pharmacy location, pharmacy type, and areas of greater opioid overdose mortality.MethodsA cross-sectional design was used to conduct a telephone survey of community pharmacists. A list of community pharmacies was obtained from the Georgia Board of Pharmacy; 25% were randomly selected, stratified across the National Center for Health Statistics rural-urban codes. The primary outcome was pharmacist-reported naloxone stock status. Predictor variables included urban and rural location, pharmacy type, and opioid related mortality rates. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were performed using StataCorp. 2017 Stata Statistical Software: Release 15.ResultsOf the 600 pharmacies randomly selected, 166 pharmacies were not called because they were not open to the public or had known corporate policy prohibiting the release of stock information, or because of undisclosed reasons. Of the 434 called, 330 (76%) answered and agreed to participate and were included in the analysis. The majority were metropolitan (66%) and chain pharmacies with 4 or more locations (62%). Only 31% reported that naloxone was available for same-day purchase, 65% did not carry naloxone and 3% indicated that it was out of stock. Chain community pharmacies (CVS, Walgreens, etc.), were more likely than independent pharmacies to have naloxone for same-day purchase (45% vs 24%; OR = 2.106, 95% CI 1.124-3.943), and areas with high opioid mortality rates were more likely to have naloxone than areas with low mortality rates (38% vs. 24%; odds ratio 1.866 [95% CI 1.059-3.290]).ConclusionPatients in Georgia face barriers accessing the potentially life-saving medication naloxone. Most community pharmacies (69%) did not have naloxone stocked. Naloxone was less likely to be available from independent pharmacies and in areas of lower than average opioid mortality rates. Additional strategies are needed to increase access to naloxone in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic.