Abstract
Purpose There have been increasing concerns about adverse effects and drug interactions with meperidine including removal from the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications. The goal of this study was to characterize pharmacoepidemiological patterns in meperidine use in the United States.
Methods Meperidine distribution data was obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS). Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use Files (PUF) were utilized to capture overall trends in national meperidine prescriptions.
Results National meperidine distribution decreased from 2001 to 2019 by 94.6%. In 2019 Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi saw significantly greater distribution per person when compared to the average state (9.27, SD = 6.82). Meperidine per ten persons showed an eighteen-fold difference between the highest (Arkansas = 36.8 mg) and lowest (Minnesota = 2.1 mg) states. Five of the six lowest states were in the northeast. Meperidine distribution per state was significantly correlated with the prevalence of adult obesity (r(47) = +0.47, p < 0.001).
Family medicine and internal medicine physicians accounted for 28.9% and 20.5% of Medicare Part D total daily supply (TDS) of meperidine in 2017. However, interventional pain management (5.66) and pain management (3.48) physicians accounted for the longest while family medicine (0.69) and internal medicine (0.40) accounted for the shortest TDS per provider.
Conclusion Use of meperidine has been declining over the last two-decades. Meperidine distribution varied on a geographical level with south/south-central, and more obese, states showing appreciably greater distribution per person. Primary care doctors continue to account for the majority of meperidine daily supply, but specialists like interventional pain management were the most likely to prescribe meperidine to Medicare patients. Increasing knowledge of meperidine’s undesirable adverse effects (e.g. seizures) and serious drug-drug interactions likely are responsible for these pronounced reductions.
Competing Interest Statement
BJP is part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The other authors have no relevant disclosures.
Clinical Trial
This was not a clinical trial.
Funding Statement
The Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine Summer Research Immersion Program supported the summer stipend of the first author.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
#20180410-009
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* bpiper{at}som.geisinger.edu; psy391{at}gmail.com
Disclosures: BJP is part of an osteoarthritis research team supported by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The other authors have no relevant disclosures.
Data Availability
Original data is available at the DEA's ARCOS and Medicare.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/arcos/retail_drug_summary/report_yr_2019.pdf
