Restrictive opioid prescribing with indication and intended treatment duration

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are antacids that are frequently used. Pantoprazole (1.3 million users) and (es) omeprazole (1.2 million users) were among the top 3 most used medicines in 2023 (1). However, it appears that a large number of these drug users have no indication for PPI use (anymore) (2). With short-term use, more than half of the patients appeared to have no indication (3). Part of this is caused by starting PPIs as stomach protection without indication.

The NHG guideline “Prevention of stomach complications due to drug use (NL)” and the knowledge document proton pump inhibitors (NL) indicate that a PPI is indicated as stomach protection based on risk factors, such as age, ulcer or history of stomach complications, NSAID dosing, co-medication with an increased risk of stomach complications and comorbidities, such as rheumatoid arthritis, heart failure or diabetes (4 - 6). By prescribing PPIs based on risk factors for stomach protection, unnecessary PPI use can be reduced, thereby preventing environmental impact.

Antiemetics, such as 5HT3 antagonists (e.g. ondansetron and granisetron) and dopamine antagonists (e.g. metoclopramide), are widely used in clinical care to prevent and treat nausea and vomiting, for example postoperatively or during chemotherapy. Research shows that antiemetics administered enterally (e.g., orally or rectally) at an equivalent dose usually have a similar effectiveness and safety to those administered intravenously (IV) (1-2).

The oral/rectal route contributes to greater comfort and autonomy. In addition, the use of oral/rectal medication is more cost-effective and sustainable, because fewer disposable materials are required than intravenous administration (3). In situations where oral administration is not feasible, such as severe nausea or vomiting, rectal administration may sometimes still be chosen. IV administration is only eligible if this is not possible. This is further detailed in the NVZA monographs (4-6).

Inhalation medications are used in the treatment of asthma and COPD. In the Netherlands, more than 1.4 million people use inhalation medications every year, including bronchodilators, such as short- and long-acting β2 sympathomimetics and parasympatholytics, and inhaled corticosteroids (1). There are various types of inhalers available, including dose aerosols, powder inhalers, and soft mist inhalers. These vary greatly in environmental impact because dose aerosols contain propellants, such as HFA-134a, which has a 1500 times stronger greenhouse effect than CO₂ (2).

In some countries, powder inhalers are already prescribed more often. For example, the proportion of dose aerosols is lowest in Sweden (± 10%), highest in England (± 70%) and around 50% in the Netherlands (2, 3). If the Netherlands were to follow the Swedish example, a significant amount of CO₂ emissions could be prevented (2, 3). This is feasible because powder inhalers and soft mist inhalers are an effective alternative for most adult asthma and COPD patients, provided the inhalation technique is used correctly (4). In addition, more and more dose aerosols based on more sustainable propellants will come on the market in the coming years. This can also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of inhalation medication.

To encourage doctors and pharmacists to prescribe climate-friendly inhalation medication, the Tranmural guideline for climate-aware prescribing of inhalation medication was developed by the Health Institute in collaboration with GPs, pulmonologists, paediatricians, pharmacists and the Lung Fund (4). To make a real impact, the guideline still requires inclusion in local formularies, so that the large-scale, unnecessary use of environmentally harmful inhalation medications can be reduced.

Timely conversion from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics is an important intervention within appropriate and sustainable care. Within the national antimicrobial stewardship program, as developed by SWAB, it is recommended to re-evaluate the route of antibiotic administration daily and switch to oral therapy as soon as possible once the patient is clinically stable and oral intake is possible (1). Switching to oral therapy contributes to shortening hospital stays, reduces complications from IV administration such as line infections and phlebitis, decreases the time spent preparing and administering infusions, and reduces material usage (2).

The Dutch Healthcare Institute explicitly states in its improvement report on Lower Respiratory Tract Infections that, where possible, a switch to oral antibiotics should be made for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (3). This recommendation has been translated into a target of 80% IV-to-oral switch, as included in the implementation agenda for Healthcare Evaluation and Appropriate Use (4). The Antimicrobial Stewardship Monitor (AMSM), which provides feedback on prescribing behavior to local A-teams, shows that this target percentage is often not yet achieved in practice (5).

Besides CAP, there is increasing evidence for IV-to-oral switch in other indications. A systematic review shows that in clinically stable patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis, an early switch to oral antibiotics leads to a clinically equivalent, but safer treatment, including a shorter hospital stay (6). For bone and joint infections, it has been shown that oral therapy during the first six weeks of treatment is non-inferior to intravenous therapy (7). It also appears that in patients with cellulitis, a switch to oral treatment, once the spread of the infection has stopped, leads to a non-inferior treatment (8).

Timely switching to oral treatment offers not only clinical benefits but also sustainability gains. For example, for penicillin use in pneumonia, based on the baseline situation in Denmark, it has been shown that timely completion of oral treatment leads to a reduction in climate impact of approximately 56%, increasing to 94% with fully oral treatment (9). For ciprofloxacin, a recent study has shown that one oral dose has a climate impact of 12.6 grams of CO₂-equivalent, while an IV dose corresponds to a climate impact of almost 900 grams of CO₂-equivalent (10).