Early Mortality After the First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy persists alongside concerns about the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. We aimed to examine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on risk of death among US veterans. METHODS: We conducted a target trial emulation to estimate and compare risk of death up to 60 days under two COVID-19 vaccination strategies: vaccination within 7 days of enrollment versus no vaccination through follow-up. The study cohort included individuals aged ≥18 years enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system and eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination according to guideline recommendations from 1 March 2021 through 1 July 2021. The outcomes of interest included deaths from any cause and excluding a COVID-19 diagnosis. Observations were cloned to both treatment strategies, censored, and weighted to estimate per-protocol effects. RESULTS: We included 3 158 507 veterans. Under the vaccination strategy, 364 993 received vaccine within 7 days. At 60 days, there were 156 deaths per 100 000 veterans under the vaccination strategy versus 185 deaths under the no vaccination strategy, corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -25.9 (95% confidence limit [CL], -59.5 to 2.7) and relative risk of 0.86 (95% CL, .7 to 1.0). When those with a COVID-19 infection in the first 60 days were censored, the absolute risk difference was -20.6 (95% CL, -53.4 to 16.0) with a relative risk of 0.88 (95% CL, .7 to 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower but not statistically significantly different risk of death in the first 60 days. These results agree with prior scientific knowledge suggesting vaccination is safe with the potential for substantial health benefits.

Facility-Level Variation in Racial Disparities in Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation: The REACH-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke risk for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Prior research demonstrates lower anticoagulant prescribing in Black than in White individuals but few studies have examined racial differences in facility-level anticoagulant prescribing for AF. OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in anticoagulant initiation by race within Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Black and White patients enrolled in the VA with incident AF from 2020 through 2021. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of any anticoagulant initiation (i.e., warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC]) or any DOAC therapy within 90 days of an AF diagnosis, overall and for Black and White patients at each facility. We also estimated the adjusted Black-White risk difference. KEY RESULTS: In 82 VA facilities serving 26,832 Black and White patients, overall unadjusted rates of any anticoagulant therapy ranged from 56.8 to 87.1% across facilities; the corresponding ranges for Black and White patients were 47.6 to 91.3% and 58.2 to 87.1%, respectively. Overall unadjusted rates of DOAC therapy ranged from 55.1 to 85.5% by facility; ranges for Black and White patients were 42.8 to 86.9% and 56.4 to 85.5%, respectively. The adjusted risk difference between Black and White patients ranged from - 29.9 (95% CI, - 54.9 to - 4.8) to 14.2 (95% CI, - 9.1 to 25.0) across facilities for any anticoagulant therapy and from - 28.8 (95% CI, - 58.3 to 0.8) to 15.0 (95% CI, - 8.0 to 38.1) for DOAC therapy. For any anticoagulant therapy there were 3 facilities where prescribing was statistically higher in White than Black patients; for DOAC therapy there were 5 such facilities. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of patients with AF, we observed large facility-level variation and adjusted risk differences in any anticoagulant and DOAC initiation, overall and by race. These findings represent a target for local quality improvement in AF care.

Use and Cost of Low-Value Services Among Veterans Dually Enrolled in VA and Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Over half of veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) are also enrolled in Medicare, potentially increasing their opportunity to receive low-value health services within and outside VA. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the use and cost of low-value services delivered to dually enrolled veterans from VA and Medicare. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare (FY 2017-2018). MAIN MEASURES: We used VA and Medicare administrative data to identify 29 low-value services across 6 established domains: cancer screening, diagnostic/preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing, and surgery. We determined the count of low-value services per 100 veterans delivered in VA and Medicare in FY 2018 overall, by domain, and by individual service. We applied standardized estimates to determine each service's cost. KEY RESULTS: Among 1.6 million dually enrolled veterans, the mean age was 73, 97% were men, and 77% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 63.2 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered, affecting 32% of veterans; 22.9 services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA and 40.3 services per 100 veterans were delivered in Medicare. The total cost was $226.3 million (M), of which $62.6 M was spent in VA and $163.7 M in Medicare. The most common low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing at 17.3 per 100 veterans (VA 55.9%, Medicare 44.1%). The costliest low-value service was percutaneous coronary intervention (VA $10.1 M, Medicare $32.8 M). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 3 dually enrolled veterans received a low-value service in FY18, with twice as many low-value services delivered in Medicare vs VA. Interventions to reduce low-value services for veterans should consider their substantial use of such services in Medicare.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health Care Experiences for Veterans Receiving VA Community Care from 2016 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Prior research documented racial and ethnic disparities in health care experiences within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Little is known about such differences in VA-funded community care programs, through which a growing number of Veterans receive health care. Community care is available to Veterans when care is not available through the VA, nearby, or in a timely manner. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in Veterans' experiences with VA-funded community care by race and ethnicity and assess changes in these experiences from 2016 to 2021. DESIGN: Observational analyses of Veterans' ratings of community care experiences by self-reported race and ethnicity. We used linear and logistic regressions to estimate racial and ethnic differences in community care experiences, sequentially adjusting for demographic, health, insurance, and socioeconomic factors. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents to the 2016-2021 VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Community Care Survey. MEASURES: Care ratings in nine domains. KEY RESULTS: The sample of 231,869 respondents included 24,306 Black Veterans (mean [SD] age 56.5 [12.9] years, 77.5% male) and 16,490 Hispanic Veterans (mean [SD] age 54.6 [15.9] years, 85.3% male). In adjusted analyses pooled across study years, Black and Hispanic Veterans reported significantly lower ratings than their White and non-Hispanic counterparts in five of nine domains (overall rating of community providers, scheduling a recent appointment, provider communication, non-appointment access, and billing), with adjusted differences ranging from - 0.04 to - 0.13 standard deviations (SDs) of domain scores. Black and Hispanic Veterans reported higher ratings with eligibility determination and scheduling initial appointments than their White and non-Hispanic counterparts, and Black Veterans reported higher ratings of care coordination, with adjusted differences of 0.05 to 0.21 SDs. Care ratings improved from 2016 to 2021, but differences between racial and ethnic groups persisted. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified small but persistent racial and ethnic differences in Veterans' experiences with VA-funded community care, with Black and Hispanic Veterans reporting lower ratings in five domains and, respectively, higher ratings in three and two domains. Interventions to improve Black and Hispanic Veterans' patient experience could advance equity in VA community care.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Disparities in Guideline-Recommended Statin Use for Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender : A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Analysis of Adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although statins are a class I recommendation for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and its complications, their use is suboptimal. Differential underuse may mediate disparities in cardiovascular health for systematically marginalized persons. OBJECTIVE: To estimate disparities in statin use by race-ethnicity-gender and to determine whether these potential disparities are explained by medical appropriateness of therapy and structural factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2015 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Persons eligible for statin therapy based on 2013 and 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood cholesterol guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was race-ethnicity-gender. The outcome of interest was use of a statin. Using the Institute of Medicine framework for examining unequal treatment, we calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to estimate disparities in statin use adjusted for age, disease severity, access to health care, and socioeconomic status relative to non-Hispanic White men. RESULTS: For primary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors among non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88]) and non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.74 [CI, 0.53 to 0.95]). For secondary prevention, we identified a lower prevalence of statin use that was not explained by measurable differences in disease severity or structural factors for non-Hispanic Black men (aPR, 0.81 [CI, 0.64 to 0.97]), other/multiracial men (aPR, 0.58 [CI, 0.20 to 0.97]), Mexican American women (aPR, 0.36 [CI, 0.10 to 0.61]), non-Mexican Hispanic women (aPR, 0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.82), non-Hispanic White women (aPR, 0.69 [CI, 0.56 to 0.83]), and non-Hispanic Black women (aPR, 0.75 [CI, 0.57 to 0.92]). LIMITATION: Cross-sectional data; lack of geographic, language, or statin-dose data. CONCLUSION: Statin use disparities for several race-ethnicity-gender groups are not explained by measurable differences in medical appropriateness of therapy, access to health care, and socioeconomic status. These residual disparities may be partially mediated by unobserved processes that contribute to health inequity, including bias, stereotyping, and mistrust. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Association of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Anticoagulation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in the Veterans Health Administration: the REACH-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia, the management of which includes anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Although disparities in anticoagulant prescribing have been well documented for individual socioeconomic factors, less is known about the association of neighborhood-level disadvantage and anticoagulation for AF. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between neighborhood disadvantage and anticoagulant initiation for patients with incident AF. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) with incident AF from January 2014 through December 2020 from the Race, Ethnicity, and Anticoagulant CHoice in Atrial Fibrillation (REACH-AF) Study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was neighborhood disadvantage quantified using area deprivation index (ADI), classified by quintiles (Q). The outcomes were initiation of any anticoagulant therapy (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant, DOAC) within 90 days of AF diagnosis and DOAC use among initiators. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the association between ADI and anticoagulant therapy, incorporating a fixed effect for treatment site and baseline patient, provider, and facility covariates. KEY RESULTS: Among 161,089 patients, 105,489 (65.5%) initiated any anticoagulant therapy, and 78,903 (74.8%) used DOACs. Any anticoagulant therapy increased 3.2 percentage points (63.0% to 66.2%; p<.001) from Q1 to Q5, whereas DOAC use decreased 8.2 percentage points (79.4% to 71.2%; p<.0001) across quintiles. The adjusted odd ratios of any anticoagulant therapy were non-significantly different for Q2-Q5 than Q1. The adjusted odds of DOAC use decreased progressively from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) in Q2 to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.83) in Q5 compared to Q1 (p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among Veterans with incident AF, we observed similar initiation of any anticoagulant, though neighborhood deprivation was associated with decreased DOAC use among anticoagulant initiators. Future interventions to improve pharmacoequity in anticoagulant prescribing for AF should consider the role of neighborhood-level determinants of health inequities.

Prevalence and Cost of Care Cascades Following Low-Value Preoperative Electrocardiogram and Chest Radiograph Within the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care cascades, defined as the receipt of downstream health services potentially related to a low-value service, can result in harm to patients and wasteful healthcare spending, yet have not been characterized within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). OBJECTIVE: To examine if the receipt of low-value preoperative testing is associated with greater utilization and costs of potentially related downstream health services in Veterans undergoing low or intermediate-risk surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VHA administrative data from fiscal years 2017-2018 comparing Veterans who underwent low-value preoperative electrocardiogram (EKG) or chest radiograph (CXR) with those who did not. PARTICIPANTS: National cohort of Veterans at low risk of cardiopulmonary disease undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgery. MAIN MEASURES: Difference in rate of receipt and attributed cost of potential cascade services in Veterans who underwent low-value preoperative testing compared to those who did not KEY RESULTS: Among 635,824 Veterans undergoing low-risk procedures, 7.8% underwent preoperative EKG. Veterans who underwent a preoperative EKG experienced an additional 52.4 (95% CI 47.7-57.2) cascade services per 100 Veterans, resulting in $138.28 (95% CI 126.19-150.37) per Veteran in excess costs. Among 739,005 Veterans undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgery, 3.9% underwent preoperative CXR. These Veterans experienced an additional 61.9 (95% CI 57.8-66.1) cascade services per 100 Veterans, resulting in $152.08 (95% CI $146.66-157.51) per Veteran in excess costs. For both cohorts, care cascades consisted largely of repeat tests, follow-up imaging, and follow-up visits, with low rates invasive services. CONCLUSIONS: Among a national cohort of Veterans undergoing low- or intermediate-risk surgeries, low-value care cascades following two routine low-value preoperative tests are common, resulting in greater unnecessary care and costs beyond the initial low-value service. These findings may guide de-implementation policies within VHA and other integrated healthcare systems that target those services whose downstream effects are most prevalent and costly.

COVID-19 pandemic and initiation of treatment for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide analysis of claims data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted the delivery of medical care. It remains unclear whether individuals diagnosed with new onset disease during the pandemic were less likely to initiate treatments after diagnosis. We sought to evaluate changes in the treatment initiation of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with incident AF from 01/01/2016-09/30/2021 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. The primary outcome was initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) within 30 days of AF diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included initiation of OAC within 180 days of diagnosis, initiation of warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), rhythm control medications and electrical cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to examine changes in the outcomes following the onset of the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 573,524 patients (age 73.0 ± 10.9 years) were included in the study. There were no significant changes in the initiation of OAC, DOAC, and rhythm control medications associated with the onset of the pandemic. There was a significant decrease in initiation of electrical cardioversion associated with the onset of the pandemic. The rate of electronic cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis decreased by 4.9% per 1,000 patients after the onset of the pandemic and decreased by about 35% in April 2020, compared to April 2019, from 5.53% to 3.58%. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the OAC initiation within 30 days of AF diagnosis but was associated with a decline in the provision of procedures for patients newly diagnosed with AF.

Trends in dispensed prescriptions for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children by general dentists, 2012-2019.

PURPOSE: Opioids, benzodiazepines and sedatives can manage dental pain, fear and anxiety but have a narrow margin of safety in children. General dentists may inappropriately prescribe gabapentin and stimulants. National evidence on dispensing rates of these high-alert medicines by dentists to children is limited. METHODS: We utilize join-point regression to identify changes in fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children <18 years from 2012 to 2019 in a national dataset comprising 92% of dispensed outpatient prescriptions by dentists. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, 3.8 million children filled prescriptions for high-alert drugs from general dentists. National quarterly dispensing of high-alert drugs decreased 63.1%, from 10456.0 to 3858.8 days per million. Opioids accounted for 69.4% of high-alert prescriptions. From 2012 to 2019, fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, and stimulants decreased by 65.2% (7651.8 to 2662.7), 43.4% (810.9 to 458.7), 43.6% (785.7 to 442.7) and 89.3% (825.6 to 88.6 days per million), respectively. Gabapentin increased 8.1% (121.8 to 131.7 days per million). A significant decrease in high-alert fills occurred in 2016, (-6.0% per quarter vs. -1.6% pre-2016, P-value<0.001), especially for opioids (-7.0% vs. -1.2%, P-value<0.001). Older teenagers (15-17 years) received 42.5% of high-alert prescriptions. Low-income counties in the South were overrepresented among top-prescribing areas in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We found promising national decreases in fills for high-alert medicines to children by general dentists from 2012 to 2019. However, older teenagers and children in some counties continued to receive dental opioids at high rates. Future efforts should address non-evidence-based pain management in these groups.

The feasibility of academic detailing for acute oral pain management in outpatient dentistry: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are overprescribed in the outpatient dental setting. Therefore, opportunities exist for opioid stewardship. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of an academic detailing (AD) intervention to promote appropriate prescribing of opioids in outpatient dentistry. METHODS: We implemented an AD intervention targeting management of acute oral pain in a Midwestern Veterans Affairs outpatient dental facility. The intervention targeted dentists who actively prescribed opioids at the time of the study. The pilot study tested feasibility, adoption, and acceptance of the AD campaign. Visit-based prescribing rates were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse for baseline and postintervention using difference-in-differences analyses to detect potential changes in health service outcomes. RESULTS: Results indicate moderate levels of feasibility through participation rates (n = 5, 55.5%) and high levels of organizational readiness for change (average of 88.6% agree to strongly agree). Furthermore, fidelity of the AD intervention was high. Adoption measures show moderate indication of motivation to change, and trends suggest that participating dentists decreased their visit-based opioid prescribing rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The intervention demonstrated feasibility with some indications of adoption of intervention techniques and decrease in opioid prescribing. We further recommend working closely with frontline providers to gather feedback and buy-in before scaling and implementing the AD campaign.

Incidence and Predictors of Primary Nonadherence to Sodium Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Agonists in a Large Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Newer glucose-lowering drugs, including sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and GLP-1 agonists, have a key role in the pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. No studies have measured primary nonadherence for these two drug classes, defined as when a medication is prescribed for a patient but ultimately not dispensed to them. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and predictors of primary nonadherence to SGLT2i (canagliflozin, empagliflozin) or GLP-1 agonists (dulaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide) using a dataset that links electronic prescribing with health insurance claims. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort design using data of adult patients from a large health system who had at least one prescription order for a SGLT2i or GLP-1 agonist between 2012 and 2019. We used mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression to determine associations between sociodemographic, clinical, and provider variables and primary nonadherence. MAIN MEASURES: Primary medication nonadherence, defined as no dispensed claim within 30 days of an electronic prescription order for any drug within each medication class. KEY RESULTS: The cohort included 5146 patients newly prescribed a SGLT2i or GLP-1 agonist. The overall incidence of 30-day primary medication nonadherence was 31.8% (1637/5146). This incidence rate was 29.8% (n = 726) and 33.6% (n = 911) among those initiating a GLP-1 agonist and SGLT2i, respectively. Age ≥ 65 (aOR 1.37 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.72)), Black race vs White (aOR 1.29 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.62)), diabetic nephropathy (aOR 1.31 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.68)), and hyperlipidemia (aOR 1.18 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.39)) were associated with a higher odds of primary nonadherence. Female sex (aOR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99)), peripheral artery disease (aOR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94)), and having the index prescription ordered by an endocrinologist vs a primary care provider (aOR 0.76 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95)) were associated with lower odds of primary nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: One third of patients prescribed SGLT2i or GLP-1 agonists in this sample did not fill their prescription within 30 days. Black race, male sex, older age, having greater baseline comorbidities, and having a primary care provider vs endocrinologist prescribe the index drug were associated with higher odds of primary nonadherence. Interventions targeting medication adherence for these newer drugs must consider primary nonadherence as a barrier to optimal clinical care.

Latent Class Analysis of Prescribing Behavior of Primary Care Physicians in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, opioids, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and antibiotics are frequently prescribed inappropriately by primary care physicians (PCPs), without sufficient consideration of alternative options or adverse effects. We hypothesized that distinct groups of PCPs could be identified based on their propensity to prescribe these medications. OBJECTIVE: To identify PCP groups based on their propensity to prescribe benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, and patient and PCP characteristics associated with identified prescribing patterns. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VA data and latent class regression analyses to identify prescribing patterns among PCPs and examine the association of patient and PCP characteristics with class membership. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2524 full-time PCPs and their patient panels (n = 2,939,636 patients), from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: We categorized PCPs based on prescribing volume quartiles for the four drug classes, based on total days' supply dispensed of each medication by the PCP to their patients (expressed as days' supply per 1000 panel patient-days). We used latent class analysis to group PCPs based on prescribing and used multinomial logistic regression to examine patient and PCP characteristics associated with latent class membership. KEY RESULTS: PCPs were categorized into four groups (latent classes): low intensity (23% of cohort), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity PPI (36%), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity opioid (20%), and high intensity (21%). PCPs in the high-intensity group were predominantly in the highest quartile of prescribers for all four drugs (68% in the highest quartile for benzodiazepine, 86% opioids, 64% PPIs, 62% antibiotics). High-intensity PCPs (vs. low intensity) were substantially less likely to be female (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.42) or practice in the northeast versus other census regions (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: VA PCPs can be classified into four clearly differentiated groups based on their prescribing of benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, suggesting an underlying typology of prescribing. High-intensity PCPs were more likely to be male.

Primary care physicians' approaches to low-value prescribing in older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value prescribing may result in adverse patient outcomes and increased medical expenditures. Clinicians' baseline strategies for navigating patient encounters involving low-value prescribing remain poorly understood, making it challenging to develop acceptable deprescribing interventions. Our objective was to characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) approaches to reduce low-value prescribing in older adults through qualitative analysis of clinical scenarios. METHODS: As part of an overarching qualitative study on low-value prescribing, we presented two clinical scenarios involving potential low-value prescribing during semi-structured interviews of 16 academic and community PCPs from general internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics who care for patients aged greater than or equal to 65. We conducted a qualitative analysis of their responses to identify salient themes related to their approaches to prescribing, deprescribing, and meeting patients' expectations surrounding low-value prescribing. RESULTS: We identified three key themes. First, when deprescribing, PCPs were motivated by their desire to mitigate patient harms and follow medication safety and deprescribing guidelines. Second, PCPs emphasized good communication with patients when navigating patient encounters related to low-value prescribing; and third, while physicians emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, they prioritized patients' well-being over satisfying their expectations. CONCLUSIONS: When presented with real-life clinical scenarios, PCPs in our cohort sought to reduce low-value prescribing in a guideline-concordant fashion while maintaining good communication with their patients. This was driven primarily by a desire to minimize the potential for harm. This suggests that barriers other than clinician knowledge may be driving ongoing use of low-value medications in clinical practice.

The global impact of COVID-19 on drug purchases: A cross-sectional time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The drug supply chain is global and at risk of disruption and subsequent drug shortages, especially during unanticipated events. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on drug purchases overall, by class, and for specific countries. METHODS: A cross-sectional time series analysis of country-level drug purchase data from August 2014 to August 2020 from IQVIA MIDAS was conducted. Standardized units per 100 population and percentage increase in units purchased were assessed from 68 countries and jurisdictions in March 2020 (when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic). Analyses were compared by United Nations development status and drug class. Autoregressive integrated moving average models tested the significance of changes in purchasing trends. RESULTS: Before COVID-19, standardized medication units per 100 population ranged from 3990 to 4760 monthly. In March 2020, there was a global 15% increase in units of drugs purchased to 5309.3 units per 100 population compared with the previous year; the increase was greater in developed countries (18.5%; P < 0.001) than in developing countries (12.8%; P < 0.0001). After the increase in March 2020, there was a correction in the global purchase rate decreasing by 4.7% (April to August 2020 rate, 21,334.6/100 population; P < 0.001). Globally, we observed high purchasing rates and large changes for respiratory medicines such as inhalers and systemic adrenergic drugs (March 2020 rate, 892.7/100 population; change from 2019, 28.5%; P < 0.001). Purchases for topical dermatologic products also increased substantially (42.2%), although at lower absolute rates (610.0/100 population in March 2020; P < 0.0001). Interestingly, purchases for systemic anti-infective agents (including antiviral drugs) increased in developing countries (11.3%; P < 0.001), but decreased in developed countries (1.0%; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We observed evidence of global drug stockpiling in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among developed countries. Actions toward equitable distribution of medicines through a resilient drug supply chain should be taken to increase global response to future unanticipated events, such as pandemics.

Impact of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment on Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the significant medical and economic consequences of coexisting alcohol use disorder (AUD) in patients with cirrhosis, little is known about AUD treatment patterns and their impact on clinical outcomes in this population. We aimed to characterize the use of and outcomes associated with AUD treatment in patients with cirrhosis. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included Veterans with cirrhosis who received Veterans Health Administration care and had an index diagnosis of AUD between 2011 and 2015. We assessed the baseline factors associated with AUD treatment (pharmacotherapy or behavioral therapy) and clinical outcomes for 180 days following the first AUD diagnosis code within the study time frame. Among 93,612 Veterans with cirrhosis, we identified 35,682 with AUD, after excluding 2,671 who had prior diagnoses of AUD and recent treatment. Over 180 days following the index diagnosis of AUD, 5,088 (14%) received AUD treatment, including 4,461 (12%) who received behavioral therapy alone, 159 (0.4%) who received pharmacotherapy alone, and 468 (1%) who received both behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy. In adjusted analyses, behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy-based AUD treatment was associated with a significant reduction in incident hepatic decompensation (6.5% vs. 11.6%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52, 0.76), a nonsignificant decrease in short-term all-cause mortality (2.6% vs. 3.9%, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57, 1.08), and a significant decrease in long-term all-cause mortality (51% vs. 58%, AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Most Veterans with cirrhosis and coexisting AUD did not receive behavioral therapy or pharmacotherapy treatment for AUD over a 6-month follow-up. The reductions in hepatic decompensation and mortality suggest that future studies should focus on delivering evidence-based AUD treatments to patients with coexisting AUD and cirrhosis.

An Interrupted Time-series Evaluation of the Association Between State Laws Mandating Prescriber Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Discontinuation of Chronic Opioid Therapy in US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Most states have recently passed laws requiring prescribers to use prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) before prescribing opioid medications. The impact of these mandates on discontinuing chronic opioid therapy among Veterans managed in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) is unknown. We assess the association between the earliest of these laws and discontinuation of chronic opioid therapy in Veterans receiving VA health care. METHODS: We conducted a comparative interrupted time-series study in the 5 states mandating PDMP use before August 2013 (Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Tennessee), adjusting for trends in the 17 neighboring control states without such mandates. We modeled 25 months of prescribing for each state centered on the month the mandate became effective. We included Veterans prescribed long-term outpatient opioid therapy (305 of the preceding 365 d). Our outcomes were discontinuation of chronic opioid therapy (primary outcome) and the average daily quantity of opioids per Veteran over the following 6 months (secondary outcome). RESULTS: We included 250 monthly cohorts with 225,665 unique Veterans and 3.4 million Veteran-months. Baseline discontinuation rates before the PDMP mandates were 0.4%-2.7% per month. Kentucky saw a discontinuation increase of 1 absolute percentage point following its PDMP mandate which decreased over time. The other 4 states had no significant association between their mandates and change in opioid discontinuation. There was no evidence of decreasing opioid quantities following PDMP mandates. CONCLUSION: We did not find consistent evidence that state laws mandating provider PDMP use were associated with the discontinuation of chronic opioid therapy within the VA for the time period studied.

Predicting Mortality Risk After a Hospital or Emergency Department Visit for Nonfatal Opioid Overdose.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of opioid overdose have substantially increased mortality risk, although this risk is not evenly distributed across individuals. No study has focused on predicting an individual's risk of death after a nonfatal opioid overdose. OBJECTIVE: To predict risk of death after a nonfatal opioid overdose. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included 9686 Pennsylvania Medicaid beneficiaries with an emergency department or inpatient claim for nonfatal opioid overdose in 2014-2016. The index date was the first overdose claim during this period. EXPOSURES, MAIN OUTCOME, AND MEASURES: Predictor candidates were measured in the 180 days before the index overdose. Primary outcome was 180-day all-cause mortality. Using a gradient boosting machine model, we classified beneficiaries into six subgroups according to their risk of mortality (< 25th percentile of the risk score, 25th to < 50th, 50th to < 75th, 75th to < 90th, 90th to < 98th, ≥ 98th). We then measured receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), risk mitigation interventions (e.g., prescriptions for naloxone), and prescription opioids filled in the 180 days after the index overdose, by risk subgroup. KEY RESULTS: Of eligible beneficiaries, 347 (3.6%) died within 180 days after the index overdose. The C-statistic of the mortality prediction model was 0.71. In the highest risk subgroup, the observed 180-day mortality rate was 20.3%, while in the lowest risk subgroup, it was 1.5%. Medication for OUD and risk mitigation interventions after overdose were more commonly seen in lower risk groups, while opioid prescriptions were more likely to be used in higher risk groups (both p trends < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A risk prediction model performed well for classifying mortality risk after a nonfatal opioid overdose. This prediction score can identify high-risk subgroups to target interventions to improve outcomes among overdose survivors.

High-Dose Opioid Use Among Veterans with Unexplained Gastrointestinal Symptoms Versus Structural Gastrointestinal Diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: In a cohort of Veterans dually enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D, we sought to describe high-dose daily opioid use among Veterans with unexplained gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and structural GI diagnoses and examine factors associated with high-dose use. METHODS: We used linked national patient-level data from the VA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We grouped patients into 3 subsets: those with unexplained GI symptoms (e.g., chronic abdominal pain); structural GI diagnoses (e.g., chronic pancreatitis); and those with a concurrent unexplained GI symptom and structural GI diagnosis. High-dose daily opioid use levels were examined as a binary variable [≥ 100 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day] and as an ordinal variable (50-99 MME/day, 100-119 MME/day, or ≥ 120 MME/day). RESULTS: We identified 141,805 chronic GI patients dually enrolled in VA and Part D. High-dose opioid use was present in 11% of Veterans with unexplained GI symptoms, 10% of Veterans with structural GI diagnoses, and 15% of Veterans in the concurrent GI group. Compared to Veterans with only an unexplained GI symptom or structural diagnosis, concurrent GI patients were more likely to have higher daily opioid doses, more opioid days ≥ 100 MME, and higher risk of chronic use. Factors associated with high-dose use included opioid receipt from both VA and Part D, younger age, and benzodiazepine use. CONCLUSIONS: A significant subset of chronic GI patients in the VA are high-dose opioid users. Efforts are needed to reduce high-dose use among Veterans with concurrent GI symptoms and diagnoses.