University of Tasmania
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

Defined daily doses (DDD) do not accurately reflect opioid doses used in contemporary chronic pain treatment

journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-19, 08:33 authored by Nielsen, S, Gisev, N, Raimondo BrunoRaimondo Bruno, Hall, W, Cohen, M, Larance, B, Campbell, G, Shanahan, M, Blyth, F, Lintzeris, N, Pearson, S, Mattick, R, Degenhardt, L

Objective: To assess how well the defined daily dose (DDD) metric reflects opioid utilisation among chronic non-cancer pain patients.

Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional study, utilising a 7-day medication diary.

Setting: Community-based treatment settings, Australia.

Subjects: A sample of 1101 people prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

Methods: Opioid dose data was collected via a self-completed 7-day medication diary capturing names, strengths and doses of each medication taken in the past week. Median daily dose was calculated for each opioid. Comparisons were made to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) DDD metric.

Results: WHO DDDs ranged from 0.6 to 7.1 times the median opioid doses used by the sample. For transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone, the median dose was comparable with the DDD. The DDD for methadone was 0.6 times lower than the median doses used by this sample of chronic pain patients. In contrast, the DDD for oxycodone and transdermal buprenorphine, the most commonly used strong opioids for chronic pain in Australia, was two to seven times higher than actual doses used.

Conclusions: For many opioids, there are key differences between the actual doses used in clinical practice and the WHO’s DDDs. The interpretation of opioid utilisation studies using population-level DDDs may be limited, and a recalibration of the DDD for many opioids or the reporting of opioid utilisation in oral morphine equivalent doses is recommended.

History

Publication title

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volume

26

Issue

5

Pagination

587-591

ISSN

1053-8569

Department/School

School of Psychological Sciences

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Place of publication

United Kingdom

Rights statement

Copyright 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Repository Status

  • Restricted

Socio-economic Objectives

Public health (excl. specific population health) not elsewhere classified

Usage metrics

    University Of Tasmania

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC