European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 621–623 | Cite as

Use of prescription forgeries in a drug abuse surveillance network

  • U. Bergman
  • M. -L. Dahl-Puustinen
Originals

Summary

Data on forged prescriptions in Sweden in 1982–1986 were studied as an indicator in an epidemiological survey of medication abuse.

The annual number of prescription forgeries doubled during the 5-year period. Psychotropic drugs accounted for 62% and analgesics for 25% of all forgeries. Benzodiazepines were the major single drug group, comprising 52% of all forgeries during the period. The major benzodiazepines on the market in Sweden (diazepam, oxazepam, nitrazepam and flunitrazepam) were the subject of largest number of forgeries.

When calculated in relation to the utilization (either total sales or the number of prescriptions), the analgesics codeine, pentazocine and ketobemidone were clearly at the head of the list, suggesting greater abuse liability of these drugs.

It is suggested that the data on forged prescriptions can be used as a “signalling mechanism” in epidemiological surveillance of medication abuse, aimed at detecting changes in the prevalence as well as in the pattern of abuse.

Key words

drug epidemiology prescription forgeries substance abuse psychotropic drugs analgesics benzodiaepines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Griffiths RR, McLeod DR, Bigelow GE, Liebson IA, Roache JD (1984) Relative abuse liability of diazepam and oxazepam: Behavioral and subjective dose effects. Psychopharmacology 84: 147–154Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strang J (1985) Abuse of buprenorphine. Lancet 2: 725Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Dept of Health Education and Welfare. Drug Watch, Rockville, Md: NIDA 1977Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Dept of Health Education and Welfare. Drug Abuse Warning Network, phase VI report. May 1977–April 1978. Rockville, Md: NIDA 1979Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghodse AH, Edwards G, Stapleton J, Baderman H, Brooks D, Dallos V, Hoy MA, Radford RC, Vyse JA, Williams DJ (1981) Drug-related problems in London accident and emergency departments. A twelve month survey. Lancet 2: 859–862Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergman U (1986) Epidemiologisk uppföljning av läkemedelsmissbruk. (Epidemiological surveillance of drug abuse) Sv Läkaresällskapets Handlingar, Hygiea 95 (6): 192Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergman U, Griffiths RR (1986) Relative abuse of diazepam and oxazepam: prescription forgeries and theft/loss reports in Sweden. Drug Alcohol Depend 16: 293–301Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swedish Drug Statistics 1986. National Corporation of Pharmacies, Stockholm 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergman U, Sjöqvist F (1984) Measurement of drug utilization in Sweden: Methodological and clinical implications. In: Agenäs I, Sjöqvist F (eds) Drug utilization studies — Implications for medical care. Acta Med Scand 683 [Suppl]: 15–22Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wessling A (1987) Continuous recording of drug prescribing in Sweden 1974–1983. Methods and examples of utilization of data. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 33: 7–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Persson G (1981) Lyckas förfalskningar av recept? Läkartidningen 78: 3262Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drug utilization in the US — 1983. Fifth Annual Review. Department of Health and Human Services, February 1985Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Bergman
    • 1
  • M. -L. Dahl-Puustinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacologyKarolinska Institutet, Huddinge HospitalHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations