Skip to main content
Open Research Europe logoLink to Open Research Europe
. 2022 Sep 15;2:71. Originally published 2022 Jun 1. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.14129.2

Pharmaceutical pollution: Prediction of environmental concentrations from national wholesales data

Samuel A Welch 1,a, Kristine Olsen 2, Mohammad Nouri Sharikabad 2, Knut Erik Tollefsen 1,3, Merete Grung 1, S Jannicke Moe 1
PMCID: PMC10445819  PMID: 37645327

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

The paper has been updated based on the comments and feedback of reviewers. Changes include: * Removal of the section on potential applications * Clarification of the choice of model, matrices, and parameters * Reorganisation of the background data and data availability statement

Abstract

The regulation and monitoring of pharmaceutical pollution in Europe lag behind that of more prominent groups. However, the repurposing of sales data to predict surface water environmental concentrations is a promising supplement to more commonly used market-based risk assessment and measurement approaches. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) has since the 1980s compiled the Drug Wholesale Statistics database - covering all sales of both human and veterinary pharmaceuticals to retailers, pharmacies, and healthcare providers.

To date, most similar works have focused either on a small subset of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) or used only prescription data, often more readily available than wholesale data, but necessarily more limited. By using the NIPH’s product wholesale records, with additional information on API concentrations per product from, we have been able to calculate sales weights per year for almost 900 human and veterinary APIs for the period 2016–2019.

In this paper, we present our methodology for converting the provided NIPH data from a public health to an ecotoxicological resource. From our derived dataset, we have used an equation to calculate Predicted Environmental Concentration per API for inland surface waters, a key component of environmental risk assessment. We further describe our filtering to remove ecotoxicological-exempt and data deficient APIs. Lastly, we provide a limited comparison between our dataset and similar publicly available datasets for a subset of APIs, as a validation of our approach and a demonstration of the added value of wholesale data.

This dataset will provide the best coverage yet of pharmaceutical sales weights for an entire nation. Moreover, our developed routines for processing 2016–2019 data can be expanded to older Norwegian wholesales data (1974–present). Consequently, our work with this dataset can contribute to narrowing the gap between desk-based predictions of exposure from consumption, and empirical but expensive environmental measurement.

Keywords: pharmaceutical pollution, wastewater, wholesale data, predicted environmental concentration

Plain English summary

Pharmaceuticals, by design, affect human or animal biology, targeting specific organs and biological systems to treat diseases. Pharmaceuticals and their metabolites—partly degraded or transformed ingredients—that reach the environment may have unwanted and long-lasting biological effects on plants, animals, and microbes. This comes in addition to environmental footprint of chemicals that are used during the production of pharmaceuticals. In Norway, a coastal nation of more than five million people, the primary route of pharmaceuticals in the environment is via human consumption. Although some pharmaceuticals can be metabolised in the body and degraded in sewage treatment plants, a proportion reaches rivers, lakes, fjords, and coastal zones.

A better overview of the types and amounts of pharmaceuticals in the environment is important for assessing and managing environmental risk, but measuring their presence everywhere can be resource-intensive and expensive. With limited funds for environmental monitoring and management, a rapid and cost-efficient method for predicting concentrations of pharmaceuticals in the environment should be used to screen for the substances most likely to pose a problem.

In this paper we present such an exercise: we worked with the Norwegian Institute for Public Health’s wholesale drugs data, adapting, and translating it from a medical resource to a set of sales weights for each pharmaceutical ingredient. These sales weights were in turn used to predict concentrations of drug pollution in receiving freshwaters. In total, we predicted sales weights and environmental concentrations for almost 900 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, from abacavir to zuclopenthixol, sold between 2016 and 2019.

Introduction

Pharmaceutical consumption is widely recognised as an important source of anthropogenic chemicals in the environment ( European Commission, 2019; Richardson & Bowron, 1985). In much of the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area, prospective (prior) environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical products begin with an exposure assessment. Conservative, or worst-case Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) are calculated by extrapolating from the highest average daily dose of a pharmaceutical, and the proportion of a nation’s population taking said pharmaceutical – by default, 1% ( EMA, 2006).

More recently, refined approaches have been suggested using pharmaceutical sales data collected by government agencies or market research agencies, to provide a more accurate and comprehensive prediction of environmental concentrations of APIs at the national ( Grung et al., 2008) and European ( Gunnarsson et al., 2019) level. In some cases, available data is limited to prescription sales, but where available wholesales data provides a far more complete picture of overall consumption.

In this paper, we present a dataset of predicted API consumption PECs based on reported sales weights of pharmaceuticals from a unique public sector source, the Drug Wholesale Statistics database of the Norwegian Institute for Public Health ( NIPH, 2019). This source covers all sales of pharmaceuticals and medicines to pharmacies, supermarkets, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, from the year 1974 onwards. We describe (1) the sales data and additional information on pharmaceutical API content for the years 2016–2019, (2) the procedures for converting the sales data from number of packets per product to amount (kg) of each API, and (3) a final dataset of total amount of API sold per year, which can be used for prediction of environmental concentration. Although these methods have only been applied to and evaluated for the years 2016–19, they may also be applicable to past data.

With this dataset, we aim to provide an accurate resource describing sales weights and predicted environmental concentrations of environmentally relevant pharmaceutical products sold across Norway, providing a useful snapshot of pharmaceutical pollution for our and others’ work. More advanced modelling approaches, such as ePiE (exposure to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment) ( Oldenkamp et al., 2018), have been developed, but are not yet available for Norway, and though prone to over-estimation our approach permits rapid prioritisation of APIs without the need to gather a great quantity of further excretion and removal data.

In particular, it will provide a useful resource for the characterisation of their environmental risk – on which our work is currently ongoing ( ECORISK 2050 Deliverable D6.2).

Methods

Classifications and grouping of pharmaceuticals

The classification of pharmaceutical substances for human and veterinary use is standardised by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical/Defined Daily Dose (ATC/DDD) code system (RRID:SCR_000677). An ATC code ( Figure 1a) is a seven or eight character tiered alphanumeric code based on the target organ, therapeutic indication and/or pharmacology, and chemical structure of substances, while a DDD is defined as the average maintenance dose for a drug used in its main indication in adults. The ATC system’s widespread global use since the 1970s make it a useful tool for the broad classification of drugs within the Norwegian Drugs Wholesale Database.

Figure 1. Relationships between APIs and ATC codes.

Figure 1.

( a ) An example of the ATC code for paracetamol taken as an analgesic (N02BE01), ( b ) one ATC code can represent multiple APIs – in this example, N02BE51 represents a combination of paracetamol and ibuprofen, ( c) one API can have more than one ATC code, paracetamol is represented here by three codes—N02BE01, N02BE51 and N02BE71—corresponding to the forms and indications it is sold under in Norway. API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Classification.

ATC codes serve principally as a tool for drug utilization monitoring and research and are difficult to adapt to a substance-driven ecotoxicological approach. APIs are a more relevant entity for the characterisation of environmental risk, as ecotoxicological information is available for individual APIs rather than pharmaceutical products or ATCs. Under the ATC system, a product is characterised by a single ATC code that can contain multiple APIs, which are taken as a cocktail in the same pharmaceutical product ( Figure 1b). Conversely, one API can be used for treatment of diverse disorders of different organs and thereby be associated with different ATC codes ( Figure 1c). This complex set of many-to-many relationships between APIs and ATCs poses a distinct challenge for their interconversion, requiring a great deal of manual cross-referencing of products.

Publications of pharmaceutical sales from WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology and the NIPH are given in DDDs, limiting their utility for ecotoxicology work. DDDs aid comparison between pharmaceuticals consumption independent of price, package size and strength, but are impractical for ecotoxicological studies in which the weights of APIs sold are needed and are not always available for individual APIs or combinations of APIs.

Consequently, we elected within our dataset to calculate from scratch overall sales weights for each API, as a proxy of the emission of APIs. This required the assessment of each recorded sold product to determine the mass of each API in the product. The calculation of the total API emission per year is based on (1) the strength of the product ( i.e., the API concentration in units such as mg/L, mg/g, or mg/pill), (2) the amount of the product sold in one package (in units such as L, g, or no. of pills per package) and (3) the number of packages sold per year. See Table 1 for a summary of product and API vocabulary.

Table 1. Specific definitions of vocabulary used in this paper.

Vocabulary Definition
ATC code Anatomical Therapeutic Classification Code, a code classifying APIs or groups of APIs based
on their medical use, target human organ, chemical structure, etc.
API Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient, the therapeutic chemical(s) in a pharmaceutical product
Combination drug A single product containing more than one API
Item The components of a package, such as individual pills, dispensed sprays of an inhaler, etc.
Package A single sold unit of product, such as a packet of multiple sheets of pills, a flask of liquid, etc.
(Pharmaceutical) Product A specific manufacturer’s pharmaceutical, as sold, by unique product ID
Strength The amount of a given API in an Item, Package or Product
Unit The unit assigned to a given Strength, such as mg L -1, mg pill -1, International Units, etc.
DDD Defined Daily Dose, “the average maintenance dose per day for a drug used in its main
indication in adults” ( WHOCC, 2018), a standardised unit per ATC code and route of
administration used to give a rough estimate of consumption.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

Most—more than 50% in 2007—APIs are sold as pharmaceutical salts, with positive or negatively charged ions appended to their structures to increase stability and solubility in water ( Bastin et al., 2000; Paulekuhn et al., 2007). Where the given mass of API in a product in fact refers to the salt form, this can lead to over-estimation of the total volume of active substance sold, especially where the ion represents a substantial portion of the overall weight. Information on the salts used in each product was not always listed in the source data, and consequently, we assumed the full given mass of API per product referred to the active ion However, we aim to include an assessment of the effects of salts on PECs in future analyses of the data.

Data sources and management

Sales data for years 2016–2019 were extracted from the Norwegian Drugs Wholesale Database ( Figure 2, Figure 3a, Sales data). By contrast to prescription-only records such as NorPD (Norwegian Prescription Database) this covers all sales to pharmacies, hospitals, nursing homes, and non-pharmacy outlets licensed to sell drugs within Norway, including prescriptions, over-the-counter (OTC) sales, and procurement by medical establishments ( NIPH, 2019). In its raw form this dataset consisted of per-product sales, such as a packet containing multiple sheets of pills, or a suspension of liquid medicine.

Figure 2. Diagram of information sources to NIPH Norwegian Drug Wholesale Statistics and Norwegian Prescription Database.

Figure 2.

Figure reproduced and adapted from Sommerschild et al. (2021a) with permission from the publisher. The Norwegian Prescription Database is, at time of writing, in the process of being renamed to the Norwegian Prescribed Drug Registry.

Figure 3. Simplified diagram of data extraction and management pipeline.

Figure 3.

Sales and product background data ( a) from NIPH (dashed blue box) and elsewhere was imported into an Access DB via a series of queries ( b), cleaned with the addition of various conversion tables ( c), and exported ( d) into output spreadsheets ( e). This data was then formatted for analysis in R ( f) and PECs calculated, and the results output to foreground CSV files ( g), both of which are available as part of this paper. NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

The Norwegian health system distinguishes between three groups of human prescription medications. Group A and B cover drugs with potential for abuse, such as stimulants, opiates and strong painkillers, while Group C includes drugs minimal potential for abuse but that are still controlled, such as anti-depressants. All other products are available OTC. For the purposes of this analysis, Groups A, B and C were combined. Note that in some cases, an API may be available both on prescription and OTC – for instance, smaller doses of paracetamol can be bought OTC, while larger doses require a prescription ( Helsenorge, 2020). The Norwegian Drug Wholesale Statistics and its output “wholesale data” covers both prescription and OTC sales of human and veterinary medications.

In adherence with NIPH’s commercial confidentiality requirements, sales in currency values, and commercially sensitive information on the sales of individual manufacturers’ products were removed from the final published dataset.

Additional information on individual products that was required for calculating the sales weight per API ( Figure 3a, Product information), including number of items per package, strength (concentration of API per item), and associated unit were obtained separately from the centralised NIPH sales database and matched to sales data using internal product codes. In a sizable number of cases, no additional data were available for given products, automatic matching failed, or the data available were inappropriate for use in our workflow. Here records were checked manually against product contents records online, principally the Norwegian pharmaceuticals specialties site Felleskatalogen, the UK Electronic Medicines Compendium, and the US site Drugs.com. Cases where one product contained two or more APIs (combination drugs) were split into separate entries for each API to ensure substances were fully accounted for.

Although efforts were made to include the sales of as many products as possible, products with sales below 1000 packages over the four-year period, except for categories of special interest (antibiotics, sex hormones), were excluded as a time-saving measure. Additionally, gas APIs (such as anaesthetic gases) were likewise excluded.

The two primary data sources, and supplementary product information where gaps were present in the former, were imported into a Microsoft Access database and organised into a related set of tables. The main table types were data tables, conversion tables, and code lists. The main data tables are shown in Figure 4 and described below.

Figure 4. Simplified diagram of database structure: the main data tables.

Figure 4.

API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Classification; PNEC, Predicted No-Effect Concentration.

  • 1)

    t_Product: the description of each pharmaceutical product (identified by product number), including information on the product type and the product amount per package ( Table 2)

  • 2)

    t_Product_API: the concentration of each API per item and the total amount of API per package of the product ( Table 3)

  • 3)

    t_Sales_Product: the number of packages sold per product per year ( Table 4)

Table 2. Field names, types, and descriptions for the Product Table t_Product.

Field name Data type Description
ProductCode Number Database internal unique product ID
ProductName Short Text Full product name from NIPH records
ProductName_short Short Text Product name with medium/dose removed
ATC_code Short Text Full ATC Code
ProductDetails Short Text Additional medium/dose data from ProductName
ProductType Short Text Standardised medium: pill, fluid, etc.
ProductGroup Number Formulation institution; 1 for manufacture, 2 for compounding pharmacy
DateStart Date Unused variable for product registration date
DateEnd Date Unused variable for product removal date
PackageQuantityValue Number Quantity of medium per package (number of pills, L of fluid, etc.)
PackageQuantityUnit Short Text Unit of medium per package
Item Short Text Unused variable from source data
ConversionFactor Number Unused variable from source data
NoOfAPI_PerProduct Number Number of APIs in a product
NoOfItemsPerPackage Number Unused variable superseded by PackageQuantityValue

NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Classification; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.

Table 3. Field names, types, and descriptions from the API per Product Table t_Product_API.

Field Name Data Type Description
ProductCode Number Database internal unique product ID
API_name Short Text
StrengthValue Number Original strength information from NIPH (not standardised)
StrengthUnit Short Text Original strength information from NIPH (not standardised)
API_ConcentrationPerItemValue Number Converted API strength value (with standardised unit if possible)
API_ConcentrationPerItemUnit Short Text Standardised API strength unit (if possible)
API_AmountPerPackageValue Number Calculated API amount value (with standardised unit if possible)
API_AmountPerPackageUnit Short Text Standardised API amount unit (if possible)
Comment Short Text
Exclude Short Text Yes (if record should be excluded from extraction)

NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.

Table 4. Field names, types, and descriptions from the Product Sales Table t_Sales_Product.

Field Name Data Type Description
sYear Number Sales year
ProductCode Number Database internal unique product ID
PackageAmountSoldValue Number Number of packages of a unique product sold
PackageAmountSoldUnit Short Text Helper variable used to record counting process

Information on APIs in a given product was not available in the original data sources but had to be extracted from the ATC codes associated with the sales data ( Figure 3a). In some cases, extracted data corresponded directly to an API, but for combination products, and ATC codes where the included APIs were not immediately interpretable, API content was determined, stored, and converted at the individual product level. Ultimately, for each product ( Table 2), the associated API names were extracted from the full ATC name and entered in the table t_Product_API ( Table 3).

In most cases the information needed for calculating the amount of API per package (the concentration of API in the product and the amount of the product per package) was available in the original data source (the product information table). In some cases, where this information was not provided, it was still possible to extract the information manually from the product name.

For products where API information could not be found in the included data, it was instead sourced for each individual product from the Norwegian pharmaceutical specialties website Felleskatalogen or Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) from the pharmaceutical specialties websites of other nations ( Electronic Medicines Compendium (UK), Pharmaceutical Specialties in Sweden, Medical Online Information Centre (Spain)). This was also the case for combination products containing two or more APIs, which typically required further work to determine and confirm the APIs present.

The resulting many-to-many relationship between ATC and API (see Figure 1) is represented by the code lists and junction tables shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Diagram of code lists and conversion tables.

Figure 5.

Defines the many-to-many relationships between ATC and API in database. ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Classification; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.

Finally, the information on yearly sales (number of packets) per product was stored in the table t_Sales_Product ( Table 4). During data extraction ( Figure 3d), this yearly sales information was combined with the calculated amount of API per product package, to obtain the total amount of API per year from the sales data.

Data processing in R

Data extracted from the Access database ( Figure 3d) were subsequently exported into flat files ( Figure 3e) for calculation of PECs and future analysis. For this purpose, the records were grouped by API and year and the calculated amount sold aggregated by sum. The exported dataset was prepared for analysis and publication in R version 4.1.2 “ Bird Hippie” ( R Core Team, 2021; RRID:SCR_001905). A full list of the R packages used is available as Underlying data ( Welch et al., 2022).

Sales weights per product per year were filtered to remove any zero values, and values for which no units were assigned, representing records for which the API amount could not be calculated. Sales weights were then summed by API, per year, and APIs were filtered according to a list of exemptions from risk assessment on the basis of non-toxicity (as applies to vitamins, vaccines, antibodies, etc. ( EMA, 2006)). Unique products excluded at each state are illustrated in Figure 6, and the total number of entries input (unique products) and APIs output are summarised in Table 5. The final dataset is published as a comma-separated values (.csv) file.

Figure 6. Records retained/removed at each stage of data processing.

Figure 6.

Count of unique products sold in 2019 retained and removed at each step of data processing ( Figure 3f), categorised as human (upper) or veterinary (lower). Stages cover the removal of exempt product types (vaccines, vitamins, etc.), substances with sales recorded in non-mass units (e.g. international units), and negative sales corresponding to the return and disposal of products.

Table 5. Table of number of unique human and veterinary products input from starting dataset ( Figure 3e) and number of unique API output ( Figure 3g), by year.

Starting dataset
entries
Unique
APIs
Year Human Veterinary
2016 5,713 660 804
2017 5,904 655 820
2018 5,991 611 820
2019 6,034 597 831

API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.

Graphics. Graphs were rendered in R (see repository for code and packages used ( Welch et al., 2022)). Diagrams were drawn in Adobe Illustrator (RRID:SCR_010279), with the exception of Figure 6, which was rendered by the website SankeyMATIC.

Data evaluation

The predicted sales weights in this dataset were compared to similar datasets gathered by both co-authors in NIPH and other Norwegian agencies ( Table 6) in order to detect discrepancies and assess the correspondence between independently calculated PECs. Although the primary output of this data paper is PECs, their limited availability made it more practical to carry out comparisons at the sales weights level, particularly as the choice of variables in the calculation of PECs is a question of judgement and conservatism as well as mathematics.

Table 6. Summary and labelling scheme for datasets used and referenced in this paper.

Label Source Type Output
format
Years used
(Total
coverage)
Reference
Welch NIPH Wholesale g/API 2016–19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMX58
Felleskatalogen FK Wholesale g/API 2018 Felleskatalogen, 2022
NorPD NIPH Prescription DDDs 2016–19
(2004–20)
NIPH, 2021
Grung NIPH Wholesale DDDs &
g/API
2005 Grung et al., 2008
NIPH NIPH Wholesale DDDs 2007–19 Sakshaug et al., 2013; Sakshaug et al., 2018;
Sommerschild et al., 2021b

NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; NorPD, The Norwegian Prescription Database; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; DDD, Defined Daily Dose.

The choice of datasets for comparison and data evaluation was informed mainly by the scarcity of publicly available data in Norway, compared to better studied nations such as Germany or Spain. The Grung dataset was chosen for comparison as the only previously published dataset using the same method.

The Norwegian Pharmaceutical Specialties website Felleskatalogen maintains a rolling risk assessment on a yearly basis of pharmaceutical risk, using sales data from a private market research firm. In order to benchmark the completeness and accuracy of our dataset to another party’s measurement of the same values, we compared our calculated sales weights to theirs. Due to the data’s private ownership, Felleskatalogen’s PECs are not archived year-on-year or especially transparent; this makes them a useful resource for comparison, but not a permanent part of the scientific record.

Comparisons were performed using a Bland-Altman plot, also known as a Tukey mean-difference plot ( Bland & Altman, 1999), which allows for the visual comparison of two measurements of a single parameter.

Further comparisons were conducted between our dataset and prescription data for a high-use subset of APIs. NorPD is a publicly available resource, comparable to those available in other nations, that can produce reports of drug consumption by age, region, sex, and year across Norway. However, as a record of prescription this database is necessarily more limited than the Drug Wholesale Statistics database; additionally, all sales are recorded only in DDDs, introducing inaccuracy compared to actual quantities sold, and excluding drug formulations for which no DDD has been assigned. A further Tukey mean-difference plot (also known as a Bland-Altman)plot was created to compare prescription and wholesales predicted sales weights.

Lastly, we compared our predicted sales weights to two further analyses based on the same dataset. An analysis of 2005 API sales weights for a panel of 11 APIs was conducted by Grung et al. (2008); we selected three high-use APIs with a wide range of constituent ATC codes—paracetamol, ethinylestradiol and ibuprofen—and compared these sales weights with our predictions for 2016–19.

To further benchmark trends in consumption, these sales weights were normalised by dividing the figures by the annual population of Norway. They were then compared to wholesale data published by NIPH – available as PDF reports ( Sakshaug et al., 2013; Sakshaug et al., 2018; Sommerschild et al., 2021b) of consumption in DDDs per thousand people per day for a limited range of substances. Although direct comparisons between normalised sales weights and DDD/1000 people/day were not possible, we were able to compare overall trends in consumption to look for disagreement.

Predicted Environmental Concentrations

PECs of individual APIs in the compartment Surface Water were calculated using a modified form ( Equation 1) of the standard refined PEC SW equation, with default variables ( Table 7), outlined in the EMA’s guidelines for pharmaceutical environmental risk assessment (2006).

Table 7. Table of PEC SW equation default variables and parameters.

Component Unit Description
g of API sold g year -1 The total weight (g) of an API sold in a year
WWTP removal unitless The proportion of the API removed at WWTP (default of 0)
365 days year -1 The number of days in a year
Wastewater consumption L person -1 day -1 The average wastewater consumption (L) of the population of a given area per day
Population persons The population of a given area
Dilution factor unitless The ratio of dilution between WWTP effluent and receiving waters (default of 10)

PEC, Predicted Environmental Concentrations; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; WWTP, Wastewater Treatment Plant.

As no specific bodies of water are specified in the guidelines, the model is assumed to apply to all relevant freshwater bodies, i.e., rivers and lakes. In Norway, where a significant proportion of WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) outflow is to saltwater fjords, the omission of marine modelling is a limiting factor, but is in-line with current practice in Norway.

Likewise, metabolism of APIs in the human body was assumed to be 0 as a worst-case scenario for all APIs. Although this may overestimate PECs, the assumption that metabolism of an API intrinsically removes the overall volume of ecotoxicologically active substance entering the environment may also underestimate the effects of metabolites ( Farré et al., 2008).

Equation 1.

PECSW=APIsold×(1WWTPRemoval)365×Wastewaterconsumption×Population×Dilutionfactor

PEC, Predicted Environmental Concentrations; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; WWTP, Wastewater Treatment Plant.

As mentioned, the standard equation estimates sales weights from the maximum dose of a given API and the proportion of people in a population taking that API. By contrast, by using our dataset of pharmaceutical wholesales we can input a more exact figure for consumption across the entire population of Norway. Default values for removal in wastewater treatment plants (0% removal) and dilution factors (dilution to 1 part in 10 upon entering receiving waters) were retained as worst-case assumptions, potentially contributing to overestimation of PECs. In particular, the assumption of 0% removal biases the dataset towards overestimating concentrations of well-removed APIs.

In addition, the default dilution factor of 10 has been criticised as potentially not covering especially low-flow conditions in European rivers ( Link et al., 2017). In Norway, the coast and sea are the primary receivers of Norwegian treated wastewater ( Berge & Sæther, 2020); information on dilution factors is difficult to locate, but one report ( Källqvist et al., 2002) suggested coastal WWTP outflow pipes are situated at sufficient depth and distance to achieve dilution rates of 50–75.

PECs were individually calculated per API, per year, using information on yearly average wastewater generation and Norwegian population, obtained from Statistics Norway and included as Underlying data ( Welch et al., 2022).

Identification and grouping of APIs

To aid in the contextualisation and machine reading of the dataset, additional data were collected and appended to API sales data. Firstly, standard InChIKeys, a short, unique string based on molecular structure, were, where possible, found for all APIs ( Heller et al., 2015) using the R package webchem ( Szöcs et al., 2020) (RRID:SCR_017684) to look up API names via the Chemical Translation Service ( Wohlgemuth et al., 2010) (RRID:SCR_014681).

Additionally, APIs were sorted into single categories based on function and/or target organ (antidepressant, respiratory, antibacterial, etc.), adapted from ATC classifications and sourced from Felleskatalogen, Drugs.com, and WHOCC for Drug Statistics records. A short description of the type and application of APIs was also included, based principally but not exclusively on use in Norway.

Data evaluation

Comparison with Felleskatalogen data

Figure 7 summarises agreement between the two datasets for the year 2018. A mean difference (blue line) extremely close to zero on the y-axis indicates little average difference between calculations. However, a number of substances below the lower red line (95% CI) indicate potential errors in either our or Felleskatalogen’s calculations ( Table 6). In total, Felleskatalogen sales weights are available for 203 APIs, of which 193 have available toxicity data in the form of Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs), while our dataset contains sales weights for 821 APIs, 255 of which have available PNECs.

Figure 7. Comparison between NIPH-derived and Felleskatalogen Predicted Environmental Concentrations datasets, for sales in 2018.

Figure 7.

Bland-Altman or Tukey mean-difference plot of difference (y axis) and mean (x axis) of log10-transformed sales weight data from our and Felleskatalogen sources. Blue line marks mean difference, and red 95% Confidence Intervals. A substance with no difference between the two predicted weights would fall on the 0 line on the y axis. NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; PNEC, Predicted No-Effect Concentration.

Of these, discrepancies between figures for ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel are due to the mistaken substitution of milligrams (mg) for micrograms (mcg or μg) for one combination product containing levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol in Felleskatalogen’s data source and have consequently been excluded from summary statistics. Differences in sales of salicylic acid may be due to its presence in a number of non-medical skin products not included in NIPH data, and/or from the combination of the weights of salicylic acid and 5-aminosalicylic acid, treated as separate APIs in our data. The discrepancy for levofloxacin between our data (5.4 × 10 g) and Felleskatalogen (3.9 × 10 3 g) is likely due to the exclusion of eye drops containing the antibiotic from the NIPH source data, while no explanation was found for the difference in vildagliptin, 3.7 × 10 4 g compared to 4.4 × 10 6 g.

Comparison with prescription data

To assess the value of our dataset compared to NorPD ( Table 6), we compared predicted sale weights for six substances ( Table 8) present in both datasets, a selection of common human, veterinary, over the counter (OTC) and prescription APIs, for the year 2019 ( Figure 8).

Figure 8. Bland-Altman or Tukey mean-difference plot of difference (y axis) and mean (x axis) of log10-transformed sales weight data from our and NorPD sources for six selected APIs in 2019.

Figure 8.

Blue line marks mean difference, and red 95% Confidence Intervals. A substance with no difference between the two predicted weights would fall on the 0 line at the centre of the y axis. NorPD, The Norwegian Prescription Database; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; OTC, over the counter; PNEC, Predicted No-Effect Concentration.

Table 8. Panel of human and veterinary drugs selected for comparison between our dataset and NorPD.

Where multiple DDD values were possible for one ATC code, the highest value was used. Codes beginning with Q correspond to veterinary applications. Inj. refers to injected forms of drug, vag. to vaginal.

API Description Availability ATC Codes DDD Notes
Paracetamol Human painkiller OTC & Prescription N02AJ06
N02BE01
N02BE51
3.0 g (oral)
3.0 g (oral)
3.0 g (oral)
High consumption
Ibuprofen Human painkiller OTC & Prescription M02AA13
C01EB16
M01AE01
N/A
0.03 g (oral)
1.2 g (oral)
High consumption
Xylometazoline Human nasal
decongestant
OTC & Prescription R01AA07
R01AB06
0.8 mg (nasal)
N/A
High consumption
Amoxicillin Human & vet.
antibacterial
Prescription J01CA04



J01CR02

QJ01CA04
1.5 g (oral)
3 g (inj.)
1.5 g (oral)
3 g (inj.)
N/A
Significant consumption
Progesterone Human & vet.
sex hormone
Prescription G03DA04


QG03DA04
30 mg (oral)
5 mg (inj.)
90 mg (vag.)
N/A
High consumption
Atorvastatin Human statin Prescription C10AA05
C10BA05
20 mg (oral)
N/A
2 nd most used prescription
Metoprolol Human beta blocker Prescription C07AB02 0.15 g (oral) 9 th most used prescription

NorPD, The Norwegian Prescription Database; API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; DDD, Defined Daily Dose; ATC, Anatomical Therapeutic Classification; OTC, over the counter; N/A, not applicable.

Comparing wholesale and prescription sales weights for these substances ( Table 8), it can be seen that on average, prescription data predicted lower sales weights for APIs, but this was driven by the decongestant xylometazoline, whose sales weight was predicted to be around 1000 times higher than prescription weight. The OTC and prescription painkillers paracetamol and ibuprofen had a sales weight of roughly 1.5 times and 2.3 times wholesale than prescription.

The prescription-only APIs metoprolol and atorvastatin showed strong agreement between wholesale and prescription weights (<10% difference), while amoxicillin and progesterone were predicted a 45% and 28% higher prescription weight than sales weight. In both cases, this is likely due to the difficulty of distinguishing the appropriate DDD to use with prescription data, as it does not distinguish between routes of admission at the ATC code level, and the highest DDDs for these substances are 2–3 times higher than the lowest.

Comparison with Grung et al., 2008 and NIPH Wholesale Report Data

Predicted sales weights, normalised by population, were also compared to earlier (recorded in 2005, published in 2008) ( Table 6) predictions and (non-comprehensive) published trends in consumption by DDD. Comparing our predictions of paracetamol sales weights to those in 2005 ( Figure 9) shows a plausible growth in normalised consumption, the majority of which is driven by growing consumption in plain paracetamol over time.

Figure 9. Comparison of predicted sales data sources for paracetamol and paracetamol-containing products.

Figure 9.

( a) Calculated sales weights, by ingredient, for products containing paracetamol in 2005 and from 2016–19, normalised by annual population of Norway. ( b) Consumption of paracetamol-containing products by ingredient from NIPH published reports, in DDD per 1000 people per day. The combination “paracetamol + non-psycholeptics” corresponds to combinations of paracetamol with caffeine, acetylsalicylic acid, or ibuprofen. For a more complete description of data sources, refer to Table 6. NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; DDD, Defined Daily Dose.

Consumption of ibuprofen ( Figure 10) is also driven by the consumption of ibuprofen as a painkiller (variously classified as M01AE01 (oral/rectal/injected) and M02AA13 (topical)). Drawing direct comparisons between different combinations of the API is difficult due to changes in API encoding, patchy data availability in Wholesale Reports, and the disappearance of dexibuprofen, an enantiomer of ibuprofen. Nevertheless, in overall trends, a similar pattern of overall decline offset by a small bump in 2017 can be observed.

Figure 10. Comparison of predicted sales data sources for ibuprofen and ibuprofen-containing products.

Figure 10.

( a) Calculated sales weights, by ingredient, for products containing ibuprofen in 2005 and from 2016–19, normalised by annual population of Norway. ( b) Consumption of ibuprofen-containing products by ingredient from NIPH published reports, in DDD per 1000 people per day. For a more complete description of data sources, refer to Table 6. NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; DDD, Defined Daily Dose.

Interpreting individual sales patterns for ethinylestradiol, also known as EE, is harder than the above due to the wide range of combination contraceptives and hormone therapies. An overall trend of decline in consumption in Figure 11a can be seen, driven by small decreases in constituent consumption, but in Figure 11b it is less apparent whether the trends of different compositions balance each other out. Historical data on ethinylestradiol consumption was largely absent in Wholesale Reports before 2016 ( Sakshaug et al., 2013; Sakshaug et al., 2018), except in the case of vaginal rings, where consumption was given in units sold in one report and DDD in the next, making comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, trends for individual combinations that appear in both datasets – EE and levonorgestrel (in fixed static doses), vaginal rings containing EE and etonogestrel, and EE and cyproterone showing corresponding trends.

Figure 11. Comparison of predicted sales data sources for ethinylestradiol and ethinylestradiol-containing products.

Figure 11.

( a) Calculated sales weights, by ingredient, for products containing EE in 2005 and from 2016–19, normalised by annual population of Norway. ( b) Consumption of EE-containing products by ingredient from NIPH published reports, in DDD per 1000 people per day. Fixed and sequential ingredients refer to a course of pills of either a fixed dose, or a changing (sequential) dose. For a more complete description of data sources, refer to Table 6. NIPH, Norwegian Institute of Public Health; DDD, Defined Daily Dose; EE, ethinylestradiol.

Checking for extreme changes

In addition to the above comparisons of our data with similar datasets, we elected to compare sale weights by API internally to detect outliers. Sale weights per year were compared to a mean weight over the sales period, and APIs for which at least one year’s sales weight was more than 10 times greater than the mean were highlighted. The substances are graphed in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Calculated sales weights 2016–2019 for APIs where at least one year’s weight is 10x bigger or smaller than the mean API sales weight.

Figure 12.

A total of 31 APIs were shortlisted under this criterion; see Table 9 for further details. Coloured by type. API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient.

Table 9. Shortlist of APIs where at least one year’s weight is 10× bigger or smaller than the mean.

API name Type Description Comments
altrenogest sex hormone veterinary birth control New formulation (“Altresyn Ceva” authorised in
Norway 2018 ( Statens legemiddelverk, 2022)
asenapine antipsychotic atypical antipsychotic for schizophrenia
and bipolar disorder
Sole product (“Syncrest”) deregistered 2017
( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
carglumic acid metabolic carbamoyl phosphate synthetase
inhibitor for hyperammonaemia
Two products, one of which (“Ucedane”) was first
authorised in June 2017 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
cefalotin antibacterial beta-lactam cephalosporin antibiotic Shortage of cefalotin in Norway recorded 2019
( Antibiotika.no, 2019)
cladribine antineoplastic antimetabolite and immunosuppressant
for multiple sclerosis and leukaemia
Authorised August 2017 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
cobimetinib antineoplastic mitogen-activated protein kinase
inhibitor for melanoma
Authorised November 2015 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
cyclizine antiemetic piperazine antihistamine for nausea
relief from motion sickness, vertigo
Cause of change unknown
dacarbazine antineoplastic alkylating agent for skin cancer and
lymphoma
Authorised March 2017 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
dasabuvir antiviral antiviral used in combination for
treatment of hepatitis C
Manufacturer withdrew application for dasabuvir/
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in 2016 ( Nye Metoder, 2016); however, ritonavir is also available alone
edoxaban antithrombotic Factor Xa inhibitor for clotting reduction
for strokes, atrial fibrillation, DVT
Authorised June 2015 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
eluxadoline antidiarrheal treatment for diarrhoea from IBS Authorised as reimbursable prescription
2017, withdrawn from market 2019 ( Statens legemiddelverk, 2017; Felleskatalogen, 2022)
fomepizole antidote antidote to methanol and antifreeze
poisoning
Cause of change unknown
gadobenic acid diagnostic agent gadolinium contrast agent used for
magnetic resonance imaging
Cause of change unknown
gadodiamide diagnostic agent gadolinium contrast agent used for
magnetic resonance imaging
Deregistered 2018 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
glecaprevir antiviral protease inhibitor used in combination
with pibrentasvir for hepatitis C
Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (“Maviret”) Authorised July
2017 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
ixazomib antineoplastic proteasome inhibitor for multiple
myeloma
Authorised November 2016 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
nitrofurantoin antibacterial antibiotic for bladder infections Shortage recorded from 2018–2021 ( VG, 2019)
nystatin antifungal topical antifungal Cause of change unknown
ombitasvir antiviral antiviral taken with paritaprevir and
ritonavir for hepatitis C
See dasabuvir
osimertinib antineoplastic tyrosine kinase inhibitor for non-small
cell lung cancer
Authorised February 2016 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
palbociclib antineoplastic selective cyclin-dependent kinase
inhibitor for breast cancer
Authorised November 2016 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
paritaprevir antiviral combination treatment for hepatitis C See dasabuvir
pibrentasvir antiviral antiviral used in combination for
hepatitis C
See glecaprevir
prednisone steroid corticosteroid and immunosuppressant
for many immune and allergic disorders
Shortage recorded 2019 ( Statens legemiddelverk, 2019)
safinamide dopaminergic MAO inhibitor for Parkinson's Authorised February 2015 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
toceranib antibacterial receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor for
canine cancers
Deregistered 2019 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
tofacitinib immunosuppressant treatment for arthritis, ulcerative colitis Authorised March 2017 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
velpatasvir antiviral NS5A inhibitor for hepatitis C Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (“Epclusa”), Sofosbuvir/
velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (“Vosevi”) authorised July 2016
( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
venetoclax antineoplastic treatment for leukaemia Authorised December 2016 ( Felleskatalogen, 2022)
vinflunine antineoplastic alkaloid derivative for bladder cancer Cause of change unknown
voxilaprevir antiviral protease inhibitor for hepatitis C See velpatasvir

API, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; MAO, monoamine oxidase; NS5A, nonstructural protein 5A.

This shortlist covered two APIs with exclusively veterinary use (altrenogest and toceranib) and 29 exclusively human APIs. All of the APIs were available exclusively via prescription, except for cyclizine. Registration and deregistration dates were checked, across the APIs, to determine if changes in consumption could be explained by regulatory status. As products, and therefore product API content tend to remain consistent over the 2016–19 period, the above changes are expected to represent actual changes in consumption. However, it was considered prudent to check medical and pharmacy literature for possible explanations, nevertheless ( Table 9).

Stark changes largely corresponded with recorded changes in marketing authorisation (23 substances, 74.1%). Use in some APIs appears to result from shortages in supply (three, 12.5%), while the remaining five (16.1%) were not immediately explicable. These latter substances were then re-checked in source data, no errors were found between years. In three cases, where 2018 sales weights were available from both our and Felleskatalogen data (osimertinib, gadobenic acid and edoxaban), both predictions were in close agreement (<10% difference between values). Beyond the (de)registrations and supply issues listed above, changes in use may be driven by public advertising campaigns, medical lobbying, or relevant press stories.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Acknowledgments

We thank Solveig Sakshaug of NIPH (retired) for her assistance with the Drug Wholesale Statistics database, and Petra Mutinova of NIVA for her work on product API data.

The Norwegian Drug Wholesale Database and Norwegian Prescription Database are funded by the Norwegian Institute for Public Health, a subsidiary of the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Case Services.

Anatomical Therapeutic Codes are maintained and administered by the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology.

Funding Statement

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 813124 and from NIVA’s Computational Toxicology Program (NCTP).

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Data availability

Open Science Framework: Pharmaceutical pollution: Prediction of environmental concentrations from national wholesales data. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y74FW ( Welch et al., 2022).

The following files were used in the creation of this work. All foreground data is included, as is background data publicly available or created by the authors.

Background (Input) Data Format Source Description Availability
t830_Product_API_sold_per_ year CSV Authors’ Processed NIPH Wholesale data Commercially
restricted
NO_EN_API_names CSV Authors’ English-Norwegian names for a subset
of APIs
In Repo
API_toxicity_2019 Excel Authors’ Ecotoxicological status of all drugs sold
2016-19 in Norway
In Repo
Felleskatalogen_PEC
_PBT_2018
Excel Felleskatalogen/
Farmastat AS
Drug toxicity, persistence and
bioaccumulation, Norway, 2018
Commercially
restricted
InChI_Shortlist CSV Authors’ InChIKeys corresponding to APIs studied In Repo
WW_per_PD_2015_2020 Excel Statistics Norway Wastewater consumption per person per
day in Norway 2015–2020
In Repo
Pop_1951_2021 Excel Statistics Norway Mainland Norwegian population on 1 Jan
per year 1951–2021
In Repo
NorPD_API_Subset Excel NIPH / NorPD Sample of API prescription data,
2016–2019
In Repo
DDD_conversion_factors Excel WHOCC DDDs from WHOCC ATC/DDD Index In Repo
API_desc_short Excel Authors’ APIs with broad categories and short
description
In Repo
Report_DDD_Trends_Subset Excel NIPH Data extracted from reported sales (in
DDD) of a subset of APIs
In Repo
Grung_2005_PECs Excel ( Grung et al., 2008) 2005 PECs for various APIs calculated
from NIPH wholesale data
In Repo
Code  
Data_Pipeline.Rmd R Markdown Authors’ Full code used in the processing of data In Repo
Foreground (Output) Data  
sales_by_API_year_processed_
2022-08-16_16.24
CSV Authors’ Final data In Repo

A published summary of NIPH wholesale data can be found at https://www.fhi.no/en/publ/2021/drug-consumption-in-norway-2016-2020/; in addition to the contact details of relevant NIPH personnel.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

  1. Antibiotika.no: Forlenget mangel på cefalotin - bedre tilgang på cefazolin. Antibiotika.no,2019. (Accessed: 9 February 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  2. Bastin RJ, Bowker MJ, Slater BJ: Salt Selection and Optimisation Procedures for Pharmaceutical New Chemical Entities. Org Proc Res Dev. 2000;4(5):427–435. 10.1021/op000018u [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berge G, Sæther MS: Kommunale avløp 2019. Ressursinnsats, gebyrer, utslipp, rensing og slamdisponering. 2020/52. Statistics Norway,2020;108. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  4. Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–160. 10.1177/096228029900800204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. EMA: Guideline on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency,2006;1–12. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  6. European Commission: Strategic Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. Brussels.2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  7. Farré Mla, Pérez S, Kantiani L, et al. : Fate and toxicity of emerging pollutants, their metabolites and transformation products in the aquatic environment. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2008;27(11):991–1007. 10.1016/j.trac.2008.09.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Felleskatalogen: Medisin - Felleskatalogen.2022; (Accessed: 27 November 2020). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  9. Grung M, Källqvist T, Sakshaug S, et al. : Environmental assessment of Norwegian priority pharmaceuticals based on the EMEA guideline. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2008;71(2):328–340. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gunnarsson L, Snape JR, Verbruggen B, et al. : Pharmacology beyond the patient - The environmental risks of human drugs. Environ Int. 2019;129:320–332. 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Heller SR, McNaught A, Pletnev I, et al. : InChI, the IUPAC International Chemical Identifier. J Cheminform. 2015;7:23. 10.1186/s13321-015-0068-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Helsenorge: Blå resept, hvit resept og bidragsordningen.2020; (Accessed: 12 July 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  13. Källqvist T, Molvær J, Oug E, et al. : Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in Norway: An Evaluation of the Norwegian Approach regarding Wastewater Treatment.2002;70. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  14. Link M, von der Ohe PC, Voß K, et al. : Comparison of dilution factors for German wastewater treatment plant effluents in receiving streams to the fixed dilution factor from chemical risk assessment. Sci Total Environ. 2017;598:805–813. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. NIPH: Wholesaler-based drug statistics. Norwegian Institute of Public Health.2019; (Accessed: 26 November 2019). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  16. NIPH: Welcome to the Norwegian Prescription Database. Norwegian Prescription Database.2021; (Accessed: 11 January 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  17. Nye Metoder: Fast kombinasjon av fire virkestoff (dasabuvir, ombitasvir, paritaprevir og ritonavir). nyemetoder.no.2016; (Accessed: 9 February 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  18. Oldenkamp R, Hoeks S, Čengić M, et al. : A High-Resolution Spatial Model to Predict Exposure to Pharmaceuticals in European Surface Waters: ePiE. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(21):12494–12503. 10.1021/acs.est.8b03862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Paulekuhn GS, Dressman JB, Saal C: Trends in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Salt Selection based on Analysis of the Orange Book Database. J Med Chem. 2007;50(26):6665–6672. 10.1021/jm701032y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.2021. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  21. Richardson ML, Bowron JM: The fate of pharmaceutical chemicals in the aquatic environment. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1985;37(1):1–12. 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1985.tb04922.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sakshaug S, Strøm H, Berg C, et al. : Drug Consumption in Norway 2008-2012. Norwegian Institute of Public Health.2013; (Accessed: 19 January 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  23. Sakshaug S, Strøm H, Berg C, et al. : Drug Consumption in Norway 2013-2017. Norwegian Institute of Public Health.2018; (Accessed: 19 January 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  24. Sommerschild HT, Berg CL, Jonasson C, et al. : Data resource profile: Norwegian Databases for Drug Utilization and Pharmacoepidemiology. Nor Epidemiol. 2021a;29(1–2). 10.5324/nje.v29i1-2.4040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sommerschild HT, Berg CL, Blix HS, et al. : Drug Consumption in Norway 2016-2020.2021b;160. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  26. Statens legemiddelverk: Rapid Evaluation of Truberzi (eluxsadolin) for treatment of IBS with diarrhea.2017; (Accessed: 9 February 2022). [Google Scholar]
  27. Statens legemiddelverk: Mangel på Prednisolon 20 mg tabletter - Legemiddelverket. Statens legemiddelverk.2019; (Accessed: 9 February 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  28. Statens legemiddelverk: Legemiddelsøk. Legemiddelsøk.2022; (Accessed: 9 February 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  29. Szöcs E, Stirling T, Scott ER, et al. : webchem: An R Package to Retrieve Chemical Information from the Web. J Stat Softw. 2020;93(13):1–17. 10.18637/jss.v093.i13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. VG: Rekordstor legemiddelmangel i Norge: - Ble desperat og fikk panikk’.2019; (Accessed: 9 February 2022). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  31. Welch SA, Olsen K, Sharikabad MN, et al. : Pharmaceutical pollution: Prediction of environmental concentrations from national wholesales data. [Dataset].2022. 10.17605/OSF.IO/GMX58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. WHOCC: DDD - Definition and general considerations.2018; (Accessed: 5 October 2021). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  33. Wohlgemuth G, Haldiya PK, Willighagen E, et al. : The Chemical Translation Service--a web-based tool to improve standardization of metabolomic reports. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(20):2647–2648. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Open Res Eur. 2023 Feb 13. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.16279.r30494

Reviewer response for version 2

Rosa Maria Marce 1

The article describes how the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) can be estimated from the whole sales data of pharmaceuticals products. The study includes almost 900 APIs used in human and veterinary medicine and covers the annual sales in Norway during the period 2016-2019.

The first part, the calculation of sales weights of each APIs per year is well described and the way they calculate it is much more correct than the data obtained in some published studies only based on prescription. As regards the second part, the evaluation of PECs is an issue of increasing interest and after the revisions I considered that it is well presented and clearly discussed.  In my opinion, based on the way manuscript is presented and the valuable information included, the manuscript should be approved.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Occurence of pharmaceuticals in the enviroment. Risk assessment of chemicals.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Open Res Eur. 2022 Sep 26. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.16279.r30101

Reviewer response for version 2

Gerd Maack 1

I have no further comments to the revised version of the manuscript.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Environmental Risk Assessment of Pharmaceuticals. Authorization of Pharmaceutical Products. Endocrine Disruption

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Open Res Eur. 2022 Jun 28. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.15234.r29467

Reviewer response for version 1

Ad M J Ragas 1, Caterina Zillien 1

Summary of the article

Welch et al. 2022 describes a methodology to convert national wholesales data of almost 900 APIs used in human and veterinary medicine into a dataset that can be used to estimate environmental exposure data. The resulting dataset covers annual wholesales from Norway for the period 2016 – 2019 and provides a comprehensive overview of API sales for an entire country. The different sources to obtain the data and their scopes and limitations are well described and compared to each other.

General impression

This is a nice data note on a highly relevant topic. The note explains how whole sales data of pharmaceutical products can be used to predict environmental concentration of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). The first part of this exercise is interesting, i.e. the step from wholesales data of pharmaceutical products to the amount of API that is sold. This is also the part that is being validated; or at least comparisons are made with other studies, adding to the trustworthiness of the method. The second part of the method, i.e. the prediction of the PEC (and any references made to prioritization and PNECs) are less convincing. The PEC is estimated in a very rudimentary way; hardly the state-of-the-art. The predictions are also not explicitly compared to measured values and thus not validated. We suggest removing this part from the manuscript.

Points of concern:

  • The authors correctly mention that some APIs are salts. Where the PNEC is typically reported as the amount (i.e., weight) of the active ion, products typically report the weight of the salt. This can result in errors. The authors mention this, but they do not explicitly state how they dealt with this issue. Do the API weights that they report refer to the salt or to the active ion? And how did they deal with different salts that have the same active ion? The authors should be more explicit about their implicit assumptions on this point.

  • To derive the PEC, no API-specific excretion was considered. This results in the overestimation of PEC but is not mentioned explicitly in section ‘Predicted Environmental Concentrations’. This is one of the reasons, we suggest removing the whole section on PECs and to focus on the estimation on the API sales weights.

  • The section on Potential Applications is rather speculative. It does not belong in a methods section. We’re not familiar with the formal structure of a data note, but it seems more appropriate to put this type of argument in a reflection/discussion section.

  • For your international audience, it would be great if the titles of the datasets on the repository were in English.

  • Not all data (i.e., the NIPH wholesales data) used in the data note seem to be publicly accessible. As such, it is difficult to reproduce the results. We don't find this a huge problem, but we're not sure whether this is in line with the publication policy of the journal.

Specific comments

P1: more prominent groups -> please specify;

P1: We doubt whether all readers will know the difference between market-based and sales-based assessments;

P1: Is ecotoxicological-exempt the same as data deficient?

P2: Human biology -> what about the veterinary pharmaceuticals?

P2: but doing so everywhere -> doing what everywhere? I assume measuring, but this is not explicitly stated;

P2: Somewhere you should explain in a bit more detail what the difference is between wholesales data and prescription data. Figure 2 nicely captures this.

P6:  The main data tables are shown in Figure 4 -> the tables in Figure 4 have different names than the main data tables listed in the text.

Confusing.

P6: the associated API names associated were…

P8: validating sales data is definitely not enough to “quality-assure PECs”. Please remove or reformulate.

P9: Please add a more explanatory caption. What does “non-masses”, “real masses” and “returns” refer to?

P9: The Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD), the Norwegian Prescription Database…

P11:  Numbers in text are reported in a lot of detail. I suggest using a scientific notation to avoid the suggestion of too much accuracy.

P12: Remove Figure 7b. It adds little to no new information.

P12: More dated -> do you mean more recent?

P14/15:The legend of Figures 9-11 is not particularly clear. Numbers are also difficult to compare. Can you find a different, more transparent way of presenting these results?

P16: Table 9: Nice example of how this data can be used to detect interesting trends (and/or mistakes).

P17: Some of the names of the data files could be a bit more user-friendly so that the reader immediately understands the content.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

No

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Human and ecological risk assessment of chemicals, particularly pharmaceuticals.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Open Res Eur. 2022 Aug 21.
Sam Welch 1

Thank you for your quick and comprehensive feedback on our paper. I’ve revised the paper in response to a number of your suggestions, and I’ll attempt to respond to them all below.

General impression

This is a nice data note on a highly relevant topic. The note explains how whole sales data of pharmaceutical products can be used to predict environmental concentration of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). The first part of this exercise is interesting, i.e. the step from wholesales data of pharmaceutical products to the amount of API that is sold. This is also the part that is being validated; or at least comparisons are made with other studies, adding to the trustworthiness of the method. The second part of the method, i.e. the prediction of the PEC (and any references made to prioritization and PNECs) are less convincing. The PEC is estimated in a very rudimentary way; hardly the state-of-the-art. The predictions are also not explicitly compared to measured values and thus not validated. We suggest removing this part from the manuscript.

The PEC is indeed calculated in a rudimentary way; unfortunately, with 800+ APIs over four years and limited time this seemed like the best compromise to make the data publicly available. I would also note that more precise modelling tools, such as Oldenkamp et al.’s ePiE are not yet set up for Norway. Our approach is crude, but we’re limited by the tools we have available, while removing the PECs entirely would make this data paper no longer an ecotoxicological resource. I’ve expanded the discussion in the introduction more to cover these questions, but I believe too much discussion would, again, be out of the scope of a data note.

  Points of concern: The authors correctly mention that some APIs are salts. Where the PNEC is typically reported as the amount (i.e., weight) of the active ion, products typically report the weight of the salt. This can result in errors. The authors mention this, but they do not explicitly state how they dealt with this issue. Do the API weights that they report refer to the salt or to the active ion? And how did they deal with different salts that have the same active ion? The authors should be more explicit about their implicit assumptions on this point.

I’ve attempted to clarify this in the methods section, but in essence: when clear data on the salt form of an API was available, we factored it into our concentration. When it wasn’t, we assumed the full weight corresponded to the active ion.

To derive the PEC, no API-specific excretion was considered. This results in the overestimation of PEC but is not mentioned explicitly in section ‘Predicted Environmental Concentrations’. This is one of the reasons, we suggest removing the whole section on PECs and to focus on the estimation on the API sales weights.

Acquiring or developing API-specific excretion factors for 800+ APIs was beyond the scope of this paper. This does potentially lead to overestimates of risk, especially for well-metabolised APIs, but as it’s also possible for metabolites to be more toxic, or transformed back into toxic products in the environment, we believe modelling excretion as negligible provides a safest worst-case approach. I’ve added a summary of this to the section of Predicted Environmental Concentrations.

The section on Potential Applications is rather speculative. It does not belong in a methods section. We’re not familiar with the formal structure of a data note, but it seems more appropriate to put this type of argument in a reflection/discussion section.

This is a reasonable point. I’ve removed the section to keep the paper streamlined – it was an inclusion from an earlier version of the paper and wasn’t described in the data note guidelines. We’ll cover applications further in an upcoming paper, and they’re also mentioned in the Deliverable D6.2 linked in the introduction.

For your international audience, it would be great if the titles of the datasets on the repository were in English. I’ve updated the names of all data sets to English. Not all data (i.e., the NIPH wholesales data) used in the data note seem to be publicly accessible. As such, it is difficult to reproduce the results. We don't find this a huge problem, but we're not sure whether this is in line with the publication policy of the journal.

The author's guidelines state: "Data notes must describe research data generated and owned by the authors." We’ve published all the foreground data, generated by the project (Figure 3f & g), some publicly available data, but no background data owned by other parties/under commercial confidentiality. I’ve updated the Data availability section to make it more explicit which data we are and aren’t able to publish.

Specific comments Responses to the following comments have been limited to save space, but they have all been addressed.

P14/15:The legend of Figures 9-11 is not particularly clear. Numbers are also difficult to compare. Can you find a different, more transparent way of presenting these results?

I’ve spent some time considering alternative ways to display the data, but ultimately, I feel these graphs allow comparison between multiple datasets without creating a false conception of closeness. Sales in DDD/1000/day and kg are not directly comparable, especially across different combination ATC codes, but trends map to each other, and sales are plausible taking into account growth in consumption since 2005. Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? – No In our view, the question of replication (of results) by others is not strictly relevant for a data note. The "methods" are provided as R codes. However, the "materials" would correspond to background data owned by others (NIPH) which cannot be published here. Therefore, the "results" (the foreground data published here) cannot be replicated by others.

Open Res Eur. 2022 Jun 22. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.15234.r29470

Reviewer response for version 1

Gerd Maack 1

The data for this manuscript is part of a larger project and utilize the unique Norwegian Wholesale Statistic database.

However, the text is quite difficult to read, as it misses an overall red line, especially for readers not involved in the project and those who did not read the project report.

One example of this is the data evaluation. For me, it is not clear why the author chose the data and publications they compared the results of this project to. Grung et al. (2005) and the Felleskatalogen data are very likely not known to anyone outside of Norway. Here a better explanation would have been needed.

Finally, all the effort of building the database and extracting the data should end in using the database and producing results. The results, presented here are, in my opinion, not really representative.  The criteria chosen, where at least one year’s weight is 10x different than the mean, is at minimum unique. I would have expected a bigger evaluation and more results. What is with e.g. the Top Ten of the highest consumption in Norway? What is with the usual suspects like Metformin, Ibuprofen, Diclofenac, etc….? Or with substances which are known to display an environmental risk?

I, therefore, find this manuscript is not really suitable for indexing.

Some detailed comments.

  1. Grung (2005) In Figure 9 -11 Grung (2005) is cited, which is not in the references and also not mentioned in the text.

  2. Dilution factor - In table 7 the PECsw equation default variables, used in the EMA guideline, are described. In the respective text, it is mentioned that the default dilution factor of 10 is quite conservative. This might be correct for Norway with the unique combination of large fjords and a small overall population. However, the water exchange in some fjords might be quite low, due to the length and the shape and therefore hardly any tidal currents and already in the Olso region, it is probably a different matter. Especially in other parts of Europe, this is clearly not correct. See therefore the public press of the effluent concentration in British rivers and e.g. Link et al. 1 for rivers in Germany.

  3. Independent of the above, an exposure scenario, where the effluent is discharged directly into the marine environment is not included in the EMA guideline.

  4. Comparison with prescription data - Individual active ingredients are sold both as OTC-products and as prescription products, depending on form and strength. This is missing in the discussion on the gap between prescription and sales data.

  5. Checking for extreme changes - Reasons for differences can also be an adverb campaign for new generics (increasing consumption) or a similar adverb campaign of a competitor (decreasing consumption)

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Environmental Risk Assessment of Pharmaceuticals. Authorization of Pharmaceutical Products. Endocrine Disruption

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

References

  • 1. : Comparison of dilution factors for German wastewater treatment plant effluents in receiving streams to the fixed dilution factor from chemical risk assessment. Sci Total Environ .2017;598: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.180 805-813 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Open Res Eur. 2022 Aug 21.
Sam Welch 1

Thank you for your quick and comprehensive feedback on our paper. I’ve revised the paper in response to a number of your suggestions, and I’ll attempt to respond to them all below. The data for this manuscript is part of a larger project and utilize the unique Norwegian Wholesale Statistic database.

However, the text is quite difficult to read, as it misses an overall red line, especially for readers not involved in the project and those who did not read the project report. I’ve rewritten part of the abstract and introduction, and I hope our intentions – to calculate PECs from Norwegian drug sales, and publish them – are clearer now.

One example of this is the data evaluation. For me, it is not clear why the author chose the data and publications they compared the results of this project to. Grung et al. (2005) and the Felleskatalogen data are very likely not known to anyone outside of Norway. Here a better explanation would have been needed. Pharmaceuticals sales data is not generally publicly available, in Norway or elsewhere, and both predicted and measured environmental concentration data for Norway are similarly scarce, compared with better-studied nations such as Germany. Grung et al. (2008) was the only previously published ecotoxicological exercise conducted with the Norwegian Wholesale Database, so we wanted to ensure that the sales weights we calculated were consistent with expected growth in consumption since 2008. Likewise, Felleskatalogen represents the only public source of PECs for APIs in Norway, but as far as we know their results are not archived year-on-year and are not transparent. As Felleskatalogen PECs are predicted using sales data from a private market research firm, this represented one of the few options we had to check for agreement between two sources of the same data. I’ve attempted to clarify these points in the section Data evaluation.

Finally, all the effort of building the database and extracting the data should end in using the database and producing results. The results, presented here are, in my opinion, not really representative.   ORE guidelines request that data notes omit analysis and focus on describing the data and its collection/creation, so we believe an analysis would be out of scope. The criteria chosen, where at least one year’s weight is 10x different than the mean, is at minimum unique. I would have expected a bigger evaluation and more results. What is with e.g. the Top Ten of the highest consumption in Norway? What is with the usual suspects like Metformin, Ibuprofen, Diclofenac, etc….? Or with substances which are known to display an environmental risk? As above, as a data note more in-depth analysis would be out of scope for the paper. Checking for extreme variation in sales weights was an internal quality-control process for us to assess potential issues in our data, but we elected to include a summary of this covering APIs where considerable changes are present but caused by market factors.

I, therefore, find this manuscript is not really suitable for indexing. We hope that our explanations above will prove that the manuscript is suitable for publication in ORE after all, when considering the definition and scope of a Data Note.

Some detailed comments.

  1. Grung (2005) In Figure 9 -11 Grung (2005) is cited, which is not in the references and also not mentioned in the text.

Updated to 2008.

  1. Dilution factor - In table 7 the PECsw equation default variables, used in the EMA guideline, are described. In the respective text, it is mentioned that the default dilution factor of 10 is quite conservative. This might be correct for Norway with the unique combination of large fjords and a small overall population. However, the water exchange in some fjords might be quite low, due to the length and the shape and therefore hardly any tidal currents and already in the Olso region, it is probably a different matter. Especially in other parts of Europe, this is clearly not correct. See therefore the public press of the effluent concentration in British rivers and e.g. Link et al. 1 for rivers in Germany.

As this study is limited to predicting environmental concentrations in Norway, I believe the comment stands. I’ve found minimal measured or modelled Dilution Factors for Norwegian surface waters, marine or freshwater, which is why we elected to use the default figure of 10. As a side note, fjord-releasing WWTP in Norway typically release effluent from a pipe located low and far from the coast. I’ve added a brief discussion of the choice of DF, including the paper you reference, to the relevant section in Methods. Independent of the above, an exposure scenario, where the effluent is discharged directly into the marine environment is not included in the EMA guideline. This is an issue with the EMA guidelines, but not one we had the capacity to address in this work. I’ve added a brief discussion of modelling of saltwater to the section on Predicted Environmental Concentrations.

  1. Comparison with prescription data - Individual active ingredients are sold both as OTC-products and as prescription products, depending on form and strength. This is missing in the discussion on the gap between prescription and sales data.

I’ve clarified the language around this in Methods: Data sources and management.

  1. Checking for extreme changes - Reasons for differences can also be an adverb campaign for new generics (increasing consumption) or a similar adverb campaign of a competitor (decreasing consumption)

This is potentially the case, although I doubt it was an important driver compared to the already identified regulatory factors, and I’ve therefor not mentioned it in the test. Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described? - Yes Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound? - Yes Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others? - Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? - Partly We’ve attempted to improve the presentation of the published dataset by rendering names in English and with more frequent reference to the data processing pathway depicted in Figure 3.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Welch SA, Olsen K, Sharikabad MN, et al. : Pharmaceutical pollution: Prediction of environmental concentrations from national wholesales data. [Dataset].2022. 10.17605/OSF.IO/GMX58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Data Availability Statement

    Open Science Framework: Pharmaceutical pollution: Prediction of environmental concentrations from national wholesales data. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y74FW ( Welch et al., 2022).

    The following files were used in the creation of this work. All foreground data is included, as is background data publicly available or created by the authors.

    Background (Input) Data Format Source Description Availability
    t830_Product_API_sold_per_ year CSV Authors’ Processed NIPH Wholesale data Commercially
    restricted
    NO_EN_API_names CSV Authors’ English-Norwegian names for a subset
    of APIs
    In Repo
    API_toxicity_2019 Excel Authors’ Ecotoxicological status of all drugs sold
    2016-19 in Norway
    In Repo
    Felleskatalogen_PEC
    _PBT_2018
    Excel Felleskatalogen/
    Farmastat AS
    Drug toxicity, persistence and
    bioaccumulation, Norway, 2018
    Commercially
    restricted
    InChI_Shortlist CSV Authors’ InChIKeys corresponding to APIs studied In Repo
    WW_per_PD_2015_2020 Excel Statistics Norway Wastewater consumption per person per
    day in Norway 2015–2020
    In Repo
    Pop_1951_2021 Excel Statistics Norway Mainland Norwegian population on 1 Jan
    per year 1951–2021
    In Repo
    NorPD_API_Subset Excel NIPH / NorPD Sample of API prescription data,
    2016–2019
    In Repo
    DDD_conversion_factors Excel WHOCC DDDs from WHOCC ATC/DDD Index In Repo
    API_desc_short Excel Authors’ APIs with broad categories and short
    description
    In Repo
    Report_DDD_Trends_Subset Excel NIPH Data extracted from reported sales (in
    DDD) of a subset of APIs
    In Repo
    Grung_2005_PECs Excel ( Grung et al., 2008) 2005 PECs for various APIs calculated
    from NIPH wholesale data
    In Repo
    Code  
    Data_Pipeline.Rmd R Markdown Authors’ Full code used in the processing of data In Repo
    Foreground (Output) Data  
    sales_by_API_year_processed_
    2022-08-16_16.24
    CSV Authors’ Final data In Repo

    A published summary of NIPH wholesale data can be found at https://www.fhi.no/en/publ/2021/drug-consumption-in-norway-2016-2020/; in addition to the contact details of relevant NIPH personnel.

    Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).


    Articles from Open Research Europe are provided here courtesy of European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation

    RESOURCES