Bishaal Tej Gurung
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Bishaal Tej Gurung has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Suzanne Nielsen
Monash Addiction Research Centre Monash University Melbourne Australia
3 shared publications - Ting Xia
Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Health Clinical School Monash University Melbourne Australia
3 shared publications - Christopher Pearce
Outcome Health Melbourne Australia
2 shared publications - Grant Russell
Department of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2 shared publications - Louisa Picco
Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Health Clinical School Monash University Melbourne Australia
2 shared publications Amy McNeilage
Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Clinical School, Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 September 2026
- Published by Wiley in Medical Journal of Australia
- Vol. 224 (9) , e70275
Gabapentinoid Poisoning Presentations to Victorian Emergency Departments: A 15‐Year Trend Analysis
This study identified and characterised 1207 emergency department presentations related to gabapentinoid overdose in Victoria from 2009–2010 to 2023–2024. Presentation rates increased substantially since 2009–2010, and about half (49.5%; 597/1207) of all presentations were classified as intentional. Co‐ingestants were common, although 36.2% (437/1207) of presentations were reported to involve gabapentinoids alone.
- 1 September 2026
- Published by Wiley in Medical Journal of Australia
- Vol. 224 (9) , e70275
Open AccessGabapentinoid Poisoning Presentations to Victorian Emergency Departments: A 15‐Year Trend Analysis
This study identified and characterised 1207 emergency department presentations related to gabapentinoid overdose in Victoria from 2009–2010 to 2023–2024. Presentation rates increased substantially since 2009–2010, and about half (49.5%; 597/1207) of all presentations were classified as intentional. Co‐ingestants were common, although 36.2% (437/1207) of presentations were reported to involve gabapentinoids alone.
- 13 November 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Pain Medicine
- Vol. 27 (2) , 233
Reply to letter to the editor regarding “contextualizing “strong opioid” initiation—beyond classification toward clinical intent”
- 13 November 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Pain Medicine
- Vol. 27 (2) , 233
Reply to letter to the editor regarding “contextualizing “strong opioid” initiation—beyond classification toward clinical intent”
- Open Access
- 30 April 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Pain Medicine
- Vol. 26 (9) , 583-590
Understanding the first prescription: clinical and demographic drivers of strong opioid use in primary care
Aim: To evaluate the demographic and clinical factors that influence the initiation of weak versus strong opioids among opioid-naïve patients in Australian primary care settings. Methods: This retrospective cohort study focused on opioid-naïve patients, defined as those receiving an eligible opioid prescription with no prior opioid prescriptions in the prior year. The study used general practice data extracted in partnership with Primary Health Networks via the POpulation Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) platform. Opioid prescriptions at the time of initiation were categorized as weak or strong. We used multivariate probit model analysis to identify the demographic and clinical factors associated with type of opioid at initiation of prescribing. Results: We identified 415 098 opioid-naïve patients in primary care between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2023, with 17% initiated on strong opioids. The probability of initiation with a strong opioid increased in patients who were more than 80 years of age by 25.0% (95% CI: 0.244 to 0.257) compared with patients who were 20–29 years of age. Patients with diagnoses of pain related to injury procedures (9.7% increase; 95% CI: 0.093 to 0.101) or with prior antipsychotic prescriptions (6.2% increase; 95% CI: 0.055 to 0.067) had higher probabilities of being prescribed strong opioids at initiation than did those without these conditions. Conclusion: One in 6 patients initiated on opioids in primary care was prescribed a strong opioid. This study highlights key factors associated with initiation of strong opioids among opioid-naïve patients. Further assessment of clinical suitability and outcomes associated with strong opioid prescribing can inform our understanding of opioid use in primary care.
- 30 April 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Pain Medicine
- Vol. 26 (9) , 583-590
Open AccessUnderstanding the first prescription: clinical and demographic drivers of strong opioid use in primary care
Aim: To evaluate the demographic and clinical factors that influence the initiation of weak versus strong opioids among opioid-naïve patients in Australian primary care settings. Methods: This retrospective cohort study focused on opioid-naïve patients, defined as those receiving an eligible opioid prescription with no prior opioid prescriptions in the prior year. The study used general practice data extracted in partnership with Primary Health Networks via the POpulation Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) platform. Opioid prescriptions at the time of initiation were categorized as weak or strong. We used multivariate probit model analysis to identify the demographic and clinical factors associated with type of opioid at initiation of prescribing. Results: We identified 415 098 opioid-naïve patients in primary care between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2023, with 17% initiated on strong opioids. The probability of initiation with a strong opioid increased in patients who were more than 80 years of age by 25.0% (95% CI: 0.244 to 0.257) compared with patients who were 20–29 years of age. Patients with diagnoses of pain related to injury procedures (9.7% increase; 95% CI: 0.093 to 0.101) or with prior antipsychotic prescriptions (6.2% increase; 95% CI: 0.055 to 0.067) had higher probabilities of being prescribed strong opioids at initiation than did those without these conditions. Conclusion: One in 6 patients initiated on opioids in primary care was prescribed a strong opioid. This study highlights key factors associated with initiation of strong opioids among opioid-naïve patients. Further assessment of clinical suitability and outcomes associated with strong opioid prescribing can inform our understanding of opioid use in primary care.