Melatonin use among children, adolescents, and young adults: a Danish nationwide drug utilization study.

We aimed to provide a detailed description of the use of melatonin in Danish children, adolescents, and young adults during 2012-2019. We identified melatonin users 0-24 years of age (n = 43,652; median age 16 years) via the Danish nationwide health registers. Melatonin is a prescription drug in Denmark. The incidence of melatonin use increased from 2.4 to 3.9/1000 person-years during 2012 to 2019. Among 6,557 incident users in 2019, 53% filled only a single prescription within the first 6 months. Long-term use was most common among the younger age groups, with 17% of 5-9-year-olds and 14% of 10-13-year-olds being in continued treatment (no treatment breaks) 12 months after their first melatonin prescription. Disregarding treatment breaks, 3 in 10 were using melatonin 12 months after their first melatonin prescription and this proportion was also highest among 5-9-year-olds (63%) and 10-13-year-olds (51%). Psychopathology was common among melatonin users with 75% registered with either a psychiatric disorder diagnosis (54%), a filled prescription for another psychotropic (58%), or a contact to a private practice psychiatrist (15%) within ± 12 months of treatment initiation. General practitioners authorized melatonin prescriptions to almost half of all new users (48%), while psychiatric specialists authorized 37% of first prescriptions. In conclusion, the incidence of melatonin use increased in Denmark from 2012 to 2019. A substantial proportion of users had concurrent psychopathology most likely explaining their use of melatonin. Long-term melatonin use was more common among the youngest age groups, which should be a focus of interest due to limited safety data.

Safety of heterologous primary and booster schedules with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines: nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of adverse events associated with heterologous primary (two dose) and booster (three dose) vaccine schedules for covid-19 with Oxford-AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1-S priming followed by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 or Moderna's mRNA-1273) as compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules for covid-19. DESIGN: Nationwide cohort study. SETTING: Denmark, 1 January 2021 to 26 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-65 years who received a heterologous vaccine schedule of priming with ChAdOx1-S and one or two mRNA booster doses (with either the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine) were compared with adults who received a homologous BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine schedule (ie, two dose v two dose, and three dose v three dose schedule). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of hospital contacts for a range of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days after the second or third vaccine dose, comparing heterologous versus homologous vaccine schedules. Secondary outcomes included additional prioritised adverse events of special interest. Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios with adjustment for selected covariates. RESULTS: Individuals who had had a heterologous primary vaccine (n=137 495) or a homologous vaccine (n=2 688 142) were identified, in addition to those who had had a heterologous booster (n=129 770) or a homologous booster (n=2 197 213). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days for the heterologous primary and booster vaccine schedules in comparison with the homologous mRNA vaccine schedules were 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.91) and 1.00 (0.58 to 1.72) for ischaemic cardiac events, 0.74 (0.40 to 1.34) and 0.72 (0.37 to 1.42) for cerebrovascular events, 1.12 (0.13 to 9.58) and 4.74 (0.94 to 24.01) for arterial thromboembolisms, 0.79 (0.45 to 1.38) and 1.09 (0.60 to 1.98) for venous thromboembolisms, 0.84 (0.18 to 3.96) and 1.04 (0.60 to 4.55) for myocarditis or pericarditis, 0.97 (0.45 to 2.10) and 0.89 (0.21 to 3.77) for thrombocytopenia and coagulative disorders, and 1.39 (1.01 to 1.91) and 1.02 (0.70 to 1.47) for other bleeding events, respectively. No associations with any of the outcomes were found when restricting to serious adverse events defined as stay in hospital for more than 24 h. CONCLUSION: Heterologous primary and booster covid-19 vaccine schedules of ChAdOx1-S priming and mRNA booster doses as both second and third doses were not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules. These results are reassuring but given the rarity of some of the adverse events, associations cannot be excluded.

Post-acute effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals not requiring hospital admission: a Danish population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 might have persisting symptoms (so-called long COVID) and delayed complications after discharge. However, little is known regarding the risk for those not admitted to hospital. We therefore examined prescription drug and health-care use after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using the Danish prescription, patient, and health insurance registries. All individuals with a positive or negative RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark between Feb 27 and May 31, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest were delayed acute complications, chronic disease, hospital visits due to persisting symptoms, and prescription drug use. We used data from non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2-positive and matched SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals from 2 weeks to 6 months after a SARS-CoV-2 test to obtain propensity score-weighted risk differences (RDs) and risk ratios (RRs) for initiation of 14 drug groups and 27 hospital diagnoses indicative of potential post-acute effects. We also calculated prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall health-care use. This study is registered in the EU Electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EUPAS37658). FINDINGS: 10 498 eligible individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark from Feb 27 to May 31, 2020, of whom 8983 (85·6%) were alive and not admitted to hospital 2 weeks after their positive test. The matched SARS-CoV-2-negative reference population not admitted to hospital consisted of 80 894 individuals. Compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals, SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were not at an increased risk of initiating new drugs (RD <0·1%) except bronchodilating agents, specifically short-acting ß2-agonists (117 [1·7%] of 6935 positive individuals vs 743 [1·3%] of 57 206 negative individuals; RD +0·4% [95% CI 0·1-0·7]; RR 1·32 [1·09-1·60]) and triptans (33 [0·4%] of 8292 vs 198 [0·3%] of 72 828; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·3]; RR 1·55 [1·07-2·25]). There was an increased risk of receiving hospital diagnoses of dyspnoea (103 [1·2%] of 8676 vs 499 [0·7%] of 76 728; RD +0·6% [0·4-0·8]; RR 2·00 [1·62-2·48]) and venous thromboembolism (20 [0·2%] of 8785 vs 110 [0·1%] of 78 872; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·2]; RR 1·77 [1·09-2·86]) for SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with negative individuals, but no increased risk of other diagnoses. Prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall general practitioner visits (1·18 [95% CI 1·15-1·22]) and outpatient hospital visits (1·10 [1·05-1·16]), but not hospital admission, showed increases among SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals. INTERPRETATION: The absolute risk of severe post-acute complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission is low. However, increases in visits to general practitioners and outpatient hospital visits could indicate COVID-19 sequelae. FUNDING: None.

Developing and validating COVID-19 adverse outcome risk prediction models from a bi-national European cohort of 5594 patients.

Patients with severe COVID-19 have overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide. We hypothesized that machine learning (ML) models could be used to predict risks at different stages of management and thereby provide insights into drivers and prognostic markers of disease progression and death. From a cohort of approx. 2.6 million citizens in Denmark, SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were performed on subjects suspected for COVID-19 disease; 3944 cases had at least one positive test and were subjected to further analysis. SARS-CoV-2 positive cases from the United Kingdom Biobank was used for external validation. The ML models predicted the risk of death (Receiver Operation Characteristics-Area Under the Curve, ROC-AUC) of 0.906 at diagnosis, 0.818, at hospital admission and 0.721 at Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Similar metrics were achieved for predicted risks of hospital and ICU admission and use of mechanical ventilation. Common risk factors, included age, body mass index and hypertension, although the top risk features shifted towards markers of shock and organ dysfunction in ICU patients. The external validation indicated fair predictive performance for mortality prediction, but suboptimal performance for predicting ICU admission. ML may be used to identify drivers of progression to more severe disease and for prognostication patients in patients with COVID-19. We provide access to an online risk calculator based on these findings.

Use of tramadol and other analgesics following media attention and risk minimization actions from regulators: a Danish nationwide drug utilization study.

PURPOSE: To describe the use of tramadol and other analgesics in Denmark focusing on the impact of media attention (June and December 2017) and regulatory actions (September 2017 and January 2018) on the use of tramadol. METHODS: Using nationwide registries, we identified all adults who filled a prescription for tramadol and other analgesics from 2014 to 2019. We described incidence rates, prevalence proportions, and total use of tramadol and other analgesics over time. We also described switching between analgesics, treatment duration, skewness in drug use, and doctor-shopping. RESULTS: From early 2017 until the end of 2019, total tramadol use decreased markedly while the use of morphine and oxycodone decreased slightly. The quarterly prevalence of tramadol use decreased from 32/1000 individuals in 2014 to 18/1000 at the end of 2019, dropping mainly at the time of media attention. Concomitantly, the quarterly prevalence increased for oxycodone (from 5.1 to 8.2) and morphine (from 8.5 to 9.8), mainly due to more short-term and sporadic users, and decreased for codeine (14 to 9.6). From 2014 to mid-2017, the incidence of tramadol use was stable (around 2.2/1000 person-months) but dropped in June 2017 to 1.7/1000, coinciding with the media attention. The incidence of tramadol use continued to decrease (to 1.1/1000 at the end of 2019). CONCLUSION: We identified a decline in tramadol use coinciding with the media attention in 2017 and continuing during regulatory actions. There was generally no evidence of unintended effects on the utilization of opioids related to the media attention and regulatory actions.

Characterization of burning mouth syndrome profiles based on response to a local anaesthetic lozenge.

OBJECTIVE: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral pain condition with unknown aetiology but assumed to involve peripheral/central neuropathological and immune-mediated inflammatory factors. We aimed at characterizing inflammatory and neurogenic profiles and oral symptomatology of patients with BMS based on response to a local anaesthetic lozenge. METHODS: Patients with BMS were divided into an Effect (n = 13), No effect (n = 8) or Unspecified (n = 2) group according to their response to a local anaesthetic lozenge on oral pain. Inflammation was assessed in blood plasma and saliva by analyses of IL-6, IL-8, IL-17A, IL-23 and TNF-α levels. The degree of inflammation and distribution of oestrogen receptor, NGF, NGF-receptor, TRPV-1 and IL-17F in buccal mucosal tissue were investigated by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Immunoreactivity to the oestrogen receptor was most intense in the Effect group, whereas the No effect group tended to have higher plasma levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the response to treatment with local anaesthesia enables subgrouping of patients with BMS according to the potential pathogenic mechanisms. Effect of local anaesthesia indicates a peripheral neuropathology involving lack of oestrogen and upregulation of oestrogen receptors, and no effect indicates a systemic inflammation-induced mechanism leading to increased levels of plasma cytokines.

Effect of bupivacaine lozenges on oral mucositis pain: a randomized controlled multicenter phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: A nonblinded parallel-group randomized controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of repeated administration of a bupivacaine lozenge (25 mg) as pain management for oral mucositis pain in head and neck cancer patients as add-on to standard systemic pain management. OBJECTIVE: The primary end point was the difference between the intervention group (Lozenge group) and the Control group in daily mean pain scores in the oral cavity or pharynx (whichever was higher). METHOD: Fifty patients from 2 hospitals in Denmark were randomized 1:1 to 7 days of treatment with bupivacaine lozenges (taken up to every 2 hours) plus standard pain treatment minus topical lidocaine (Lozenge group) or standard pain treatment including topical lidocaine (Control group). The efficacy analysis included 38 patients, as 12 patients were excluded because of changes in study design and missing data. RESULTS: Mean pain in the oral cavity or pharynx (whichever was higher) was significantly lower 60 minutes after taking lozenges (35 mm [n = 22]) than for the Control group (51 mm [n = 16]) (difference between groups -16 mm, 95% confidence interval: -26 to -6, P = 0.0032). Pain in the oral cavity was also significantly lower in the Lozenge group (18 mm) vs the Control group (36 mm, P = 0.0002). Pharyngeal mucositis pain did not differ significantly (37 mm [Lozenge group] vs 48 mm [Control group], P = 0.0630). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: These results show that the bupivacaine lozenge as an add-on to standard pain treatment had a clinically significant pain-relieving effect in patients with oral mucositis. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT02252926.

Absorption of Bupivacaine after Administration of a Lozenge as Topical Treatment for Pain from Oral Mucositis.

The aim was to investigate systemic exposure after administration of a novel bupivacaine lozenge in healthy individuals with normal mucosa and in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with oral mucositis. A lozenge containing 5, 10, 25 and 50 mg bupivacaine, respectively, was administered as single dose to 10 healthy individuals, and a lozenge containing 25 mg bupivacaine was administered as single dose to 10 HNC patients with oral mucositis and as multiple doses to five patients with HNC. Blood samples were collected for 6 hr from the healthy individuals and 3 hr from the patients with HNC, respectively, after administration. The plasma concentration-time profiles of bupivacaine were fitted to pharmacokinetic models using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling, evaluating demographics and health status as covariates. The population pharmacokinetics (PK) of bupivacaine lozenge was best described by a two-compartment distribution model with absorption transit compartments. All the observed plasma concentrations were well below the bupivacaine concentrations (2000-2250 ng/ml) which have caused toxic symptoms. The PK model suggested that relative bioavailability was two times higher in HNC patients with oral mucositis grade 1-2 and three times higher in HNC patients with oral mucositis grade 3-4 than in the healthy individuals. Simulations showed that the plasma concentrations would be below the toxic limit after repeated dosing every second hour with 25 mg bupivacaine for five days. The 25-mg bupivacaine lozenges were safe without systemic toxic levels of bupivacaine or risk of side effects. Based on PK simulations of repeated doses of 25 mg every two hours for 16 hr a day, the lozenges can be administered with minimum risk of exceeding the toxic limit.

A novel lozenge containing bupivacaine as topical alleviation of oral mucositis pain in patients with head and neck cancer: a pilot study.

Introduction: Oral mucositis induces severe oral pain in head and neck cancer patients. There is at this point no effective pain treatment without considerable side effects. Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate pain reduction in oral cavity and pharynx in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) with oral mucositis, the location of anesthetic effect, and duration of pain relief, after a single-dose administration of a 25 mg bupivacaine lozenge. Methods: Ten patients with HNC suffering from oral mucositis pain were included. The patients assessed pain in the oral cavity and pharynx on a visual analogue scale (from 0 to 100 mm) at baseline and up to 3 hours after the lozenge was dissolved. Possible adverse events were registered. Results: The baseline pain was 51 mm (range: 30-73 mm) in the oral cavity and 58 mm (range: 35-70 mm) in the pharynx. When the lozenge was dissolved, both oral (-27 mm; range: -3 to -52 mm; P = 0.0003) and pharynx pain (-20 mm; range: -3 to -45 mm; P = 0.008) were significantly reduced. After 180 minutes, the mean reduction in pain was significant in the oral cavity (-18 mm; range: -8 to -30 mm; P < 0.0001) but not in the pharynx (-8 mm; range: +4 to -23 mm; P = 0.12). No adverse events were observed. Conclusion: The results indicate that the bupivacaine lozenge has a clinically significant and long-lasting pain-relieving effect on pain because of oral mucositis in patients with HNC.

Bupivacaine Lozenge Compared with Lidocaine Spray as Topical Pharyngeal Anesthetic before Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) can induce patient discomfort, mainly due to a strong gag reflex. The aim was to assess the effect of a bupivacaine lozenge as topical pharyngeal anesthetic compared with standard treatment with a lidocaine spray before UGE. Ninety-nine adult outpatients undergoing unsedated diagnostic UGE were randomized to receive either a bupivacaine lozenge (L-group, n = 51) or lidocaine spray (S-group, n = 42). Primary objective was assessment of patient discomfort including acceptance of the gag reflex during UGE. The L-group assessed the discomfort significantly lower on a visual analog scale compared with the S-group (P = 0.02). There was also a significant difference in the four-point scale assessment of the gag reflex (P = 0.03). It was evaluated as acceptable by 49% in the L-group compared with 31% in the S-group. A bupivacaine lozenge compared with a lidocaine spray proved to be a superior option as topical pharyngeal anesthetic before an UGE.

New lidocaine lozenge as topical anesthesia compared to lidocaine viscous oral solution before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect and acceptance of a new lidocaine lozenge compared with a lidocaine viscous oral solution as a pharyngeal anesthetic before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE), a diagnostic procedure commonly performed worldwide during which many patients experience severe discomfort mostly because of the gag reflex. PARTICIPANTS: The single-blinded, randomized, controlled study involved 110 adult patients undergoing diagnostic UGE at the Department of Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Denmark. METHODS: The patients were randomized to receive either 100 mg lidocaine as a lozenge or 5 mL lidocaine viscous oral solution 2%. Intravenous midazolam was administered if needed. The effect of a lidocaine lozenge in reducing patient discomfort, including the gag reflex, during UGE compared with a lidocaine oral solution was assessed. RESULTS: Questionnaires from the patients showed that the gag reflex was acceptable for 64% in the lozenge group compared with 33% in the oral solution group (P = 0.0072). UGE was evaluated as acceptable by 69% in the lozenge group compared with 39% in the oral solution group (P = 0.0092). The taste was evaluated as good by 78% in the lozenge group (P < 0.0001), and 82% found the lozenge to have good texture (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The lozenge reduced the gag reflex, diminished patients' discomfort during UGE, and was evaluated as having a good taste and texture. The lozenge improved patients' acceptance of UGE.