Potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs in older population - analysis of association between inappropriate use and patient related factors


Abstract

Introduction: Inappropriate benzodiazepines (BZD) and z-drugs use in older populations is associated with a variety of sociodemographic and health-related factors. Recent studies reported that inappropriate BZD and z-drugs use is associated with increased age, female gender, and severe negative psychological (e.g. depression) and somatic (e.g. chronic disease) factors. The current study explores the sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with inappropriate BZD and z-drugs use in older people. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among randomly selected patients of one health insurance (“AOK North-West”) with BZD and z-drugs prescriptions in the past 12 months. The sample was stratified by appropriateness to German prescription guidelines (yes vs. no) and age (50-65 vs. >65 years). To examine the association of selected sociodemographic and psychological variables (e.g. sex, employment status, quality of life, depression) with inappropriate use a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted. Results: In total, data of 340 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 72.1 (SD=14.5) years, and the most commonly used substances were zopiclon (38.1%), oxazepam (18.1%), and lorazepam (13.8%). The mean defined daily dose (DDD) was 0.73 (SD=0.47). Insomnia was the main reason for prescribing BZD and z-drugs. Inappropriate use of BZD and z-drugs is significantly associated with unemployment (OR=2.9, 95%-CI: 1.2-7.1) and general problematic medication use (OR=0.5, 95%-CI: 0.2-1.0).

Discussion: Unemployment status and problematic medication use have a significant association with potentially inappropriate prescription of BZD and z-drugs. Divergent patterns of prescription might harbor problematic patterns of BZD and z-drugs use. The causal connection between the identified factors and problematic BZD and z-drugs prescription is not released in this paper.

Conclusion: The employment status and possible evidence of inadequate drug use may be a warning signal for the prescriber of BZD and z-drugs.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.