Polygenic subtype identified in ACCORD trial displays a favorable type 2 diabetes phenotype in the UKBiobank population.

INTRODUCTION: We previously identified a genetic subtype (C4) of type 2 diabetes (T2D), benefitting from intensive glycemia treatment in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Here, we characterized the population of patients that met the C4 criteria in the UKBiobank cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using our polygenic score (PS), we identified C4 individuals in the UKBiobank and tested C4 status with risk of developing T2D, cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes, and differences in T2D medications. RESULTS: C4 individuals were less likely to develop T2D, were slightly older at T2D diagnosis, had lower HbA1c values, and were less likely to be prescribed T2D medications (P < .05). Genetic variants in MAS1 and IGF2R, major components of the C4 PS, were associated with fewer overall T2D prescriptions. CONCLUSION: We have confirmed C4 individuals are a lower risk subpopulation of patients with T2D.

Drivers of Geographic Patterns in Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing in the United States.

In a retrospective, ecological analysis of US medical claims, visit rates explained more of the geographic variation in outpatient antibiotic prescribing rates than per-visit prescribing. Efforts to reduce antibiotic use may benefit from addressing the factors that drive higher rates of outpatient visits, in addition to continued focus on stewardship.

The Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination on Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing in Older Adults: A Self-Controlled Risk-Interval Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has been associated with reduced outpatient antibiotic prescribing among older adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on outpatient antibiotic prescribing in the broader population of older adults, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection status. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥65 years who received their first, second, and/or third COVID-19 vaccine dose from December 2020 to December 2022. We used a self-controlled risk-interval design and included cases who received an antibiotic prescription 2-6 weeks before vaccination (pre-vaccination or control interval) or after vaccination (post-vaccination or risk interval). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds of being prescribed (1) any antibiotic, (2) a typical "respiratory" infection antibiotic, or (3) a typical "urinary tract" infection antibiotic (negative control) in the post-vaccination interval versus the pre-vaccination interval. We accounted for temporal changes in antibiotic prescribing using background monthly antibiotic prescribing counts. RESULTS: 469 923 vaccine doses met inclusion criteria. The odds of receiving any antibiotic or a respiratory antibiotic prescription were lower in the post-vaccination versus pre-vaccination interval (aOR, .973; 95% CI, .968-.978; aOR, .961; 95% CI, .953-.968, respectively). There was no association between vaccination and urinary antibiotic prescriptions (aOR, .996; 95% CI, .987-1.006). Periods with high (>10%) versus low (<5%) SARS-CoV-2 test positivity demonstrated greater reductions in antibiotic prescribing (aOR, .875; 95% CI, .845-.905; aOR, .996; 95% CI, .989-1.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced outpatient antibiotic prescribing in older adults, especially during periods of high SARS-CoV-2 circulation.

Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Respiratory Tract Illnesses Following the Conclusion of an Education and Feedback Intervention in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: A study previously conducted in primary care practices found that implementation of an educational session and peer comparison feedback was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). Here, we assess the long-term effects of this intervention on antibiotic prescribing following cessation of feedback. METHODS: RTD encounters were grouped into tiers based on antibiotic prescribing appropriateness: tier 1, almost always indicated; tier 2, possibly indicated; and tier 3, rarely indicated. A χ2 test was used to compare prescribing between 3 time periods: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention (14 months following cessation of feedback). A mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between period and prescribing. RESULTS: We analyzed 260 900 RTD encounters from 29 practices. Antibiotic prescribing was more frequent in the post-intervention period than in the intervention period (28.9% vs 23.0%, P < .001) but remained lower than the 35.2% pre-intervention rate (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of prescribing were higher in the post-intervention period than the intervention period for tier 2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.30; P < .05) and tier 3 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.30) indications but was lower compared to the pre-intervention period for each tier (OR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59-0.73 tier 2; OR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.61-0.75 tier 3). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention effects appeared to last beyond the intervention period. However, without ongoing provider feedback, there was a trend toward increased prescribing. Future studies are needed to determine optimal strategies to sustain intervention effects.

Clostridium butyricum Bacteremia Associated with Probiotic Use, Japan.

Clostridium butyricum, a probiotic commonly prescribed in Asia, most notably as MIYA-BM (Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; https://www.miyarisan.com), occasionally leads to bacteremia. The prevalence and characteristics of C. butyricum bacteremia and its bacteriologic and genetic underpinnings remain unknown. We retrospectively investigated patients admitted to Osaka University Hospital during September 2011-February 2023. Whole-genome sequencing revealed 5 (0.08%) cases of C. butyricum bacteremia among 6,576 case-patients who had blood cultures positive for any bacteria. Four patients consumed MIYA-BM, and 1 patient consumed a different C. butyricum-containing probiotic. Most patients had compromised immune systems, and common symptoms included fever and abdominal distress. One patient died of nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia. Sequencing results confirmed that all identified C. butyricum bacteremia strains were probiotic derivatives. Our findings underscore the risk for bacteremia resulting from probiotic use, especially in hospitalized patients, necessitating judicious prescription practices.

Interventional Pharmacoepidemiology: Design and evaluation of interventions to improve prescribing.

Despite the value of modern therapeutics, many obstacles prevent their optimal use. Overuse, underuse and misuse are common, resulting in morbidity and mortality impacting billions of individuals across the world. Pharmacoepidemiology provides important insights into drug utilization, safety and effectiveness in large populations, and it is an important method to identify opportunities to improve the value of therapeutics in clinical practice. However, for these opportunities to be realized, interventions to improve prescribing must be developed, evaluated and implemented in the real world. We provide an overview of this process, focusing especially on how such interventions can be designed and deployed to maximize scalability, adoption and impact. Prescribing represents a complex behavior with barriers and enablers, and interventions to improve prescribing will be most successful when developed, piloted and refined to maximize provider and patient acceptability. Carefully developed evaluations of interventions are also critical, and varied methods are available to empirically evaluate the intended and potential unintended consequences of interventions. With illustrative examples from the peer-reviewed literature, we provide readers with an overview of approaches to the essential and growing field of interventional pharmacoepidemiology.

Oral anticoagulant prescribing among patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation in England, 2009-2019.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and cancer is challenging because of their high risk for stroke and bleeding. Little is known of the variations of oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescribing in patients with AF with and without cancer. METHODS: Patients with first-time AF during 2009-2019 from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink were included. Cancer diagnosis was defined as a history of breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, or hematological cancer. Competing-risk analysis was used to assess the risk of OAC prescribing in patients with AF and cancer adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of 177,065 patients with AF, 11.7% had cancer. Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer were less likely to receive OAC: prostate cancer (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99), breast cancer (SHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), colorectal cancer (SHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99), hematological cancer (SHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75), and lung cancer (SHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.50). The cumulative incidence function (CIF) of OAC prescribing was lowest for patients with lung cancer and hematological cancer compared with patients without cancer. The difference between the CIF of OAC prescribing in patients with and without cancer becomes narrower in the most deprived areas. Elderly patients (aged ≥85 years) overall had the lowest CIF of OAC prescribing regardless of cancer status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF, underprescribing of OAC is independently associated with certain cancer types. Patients with hematological and lung cancer are the least likely to receive anticoagulation therapy compared with patients without cancer. Underprescribing of OAC in cancer is linked to old age. Further studies of patients with AF and cancer are warranted to assess the net clinical benefit of anticoagulation in certain cancer types.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Efficacy of interventions targeted at physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To combat the opioid crisis, interventions targeting the opioid prescribing behaviour of physicians involved in the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have been introduced in clinical settings. An integrative synthesis of systematic review evidence is required to better understand the effects of these interventions. Our objective was to synthesize the systematic review evidence on the effect of interventions targeting the behaviours of physician opioid prescribers for CNCP among adults on patient and population health and prescriber behaviour. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Epistemonikos. We included systematic reviews that evaluate any type of intervention aimed at impacting opioid prescriber behaviour for adult CNCP in an outpatient setting. RESULTS: We identified three full texts for our review that contained 68 unique primary studies. The main interventions we evaluated were structured prescriber education (one review) and prescription drug monitoring programmes (PDMPs) (two reviews). Due to the paucity of data available, we could not determine with certainty that education interventions improved outcomes in deprescribing. There is some evidence that PDMPs decrease the number of adverse opioid-related events, increase communication among healthcare workers and patients, modify healthcare practitioners' approach towards their opioid prescribed patients, and offer more chances for education and counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Our overview explores the possibility of PDMPs as an opioid deprescribing intervention and highlights the need for more high-quality primary research on this topic.

Development of prescribing indicators related to opioid-related harm in patients with chronic pain in primary care-a modified e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid use is associated with dependency, addiction, and serious adverse events. Although a framework to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing exists, there is no consensus on prescribing indicators for preventable opioid-related problems in patients with chronic pain in primary care in the UK. This study aimed to identify opioid prescription scenarios for developing indicators for prescribing opioids to patients with chronic pain in primary care. METHODS: Scenarios of opioid prescribing indicators were identified from a literature review, guidelines, and government reports. Twenty-one indicators were identified and presented in various opioid scenarios concerning opioid-related harm and adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions in certain disease conditions. After receiving ethics approval, two rounds of electronic Delphi panel technique surveys were conducted with 24 expert panellists from the UK (clinicians, pharmacists, and independent prescribers) from August 2020 to February 2021. Each indicator was rated on a 1-9 scale from inappropriate to appropriate. The score's median, 30th and 70th percentiles, and disagreement index were calculated. RESULTS: The panel unanimously agreed that 15 out of the 21 opioid prescribing scenarios were inappropriate, primarily due to their potential for causing harm to patients. This consensus was reflected in the low appropriateness scores (median ranging from 1 to 3). There were no scenarios with a high consensus that prescribing was appropriate. The indicators were considered inappropriate due to drug-disease interactions (n = 8), drug-drug interactions (n = 2), adverse effects (n = 3), and prescribed dose and duration (n = 2). Examples included prescribing opioids during pregnancy, concurrently with benzodiazepines, long-term without a laxative prescription and prescribing > 120-mg morphine milligram equivalent per day or long-term duration over 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The high agreement on opioid prescribing indicators indicates that these potentially hazardous consequences are relevant and concerning to healthcare practitioners. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of these indicators within primary care settings. This research will provide valuable insights and evidence to support opioid prescribing and deprescribing strategies. Moreover, the findings will be crucial in informing primary care practitioners and shaping quality outcome frameworks and other initiatives to enhance the safety and quality of care in primary care settings.

A meta-ethnography of the factors that shape link workers' experiences of social prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing is gaining traction internationally. It is an approach which seeks to address non-medical and health-related social needs through taking a holistic person-centred and community-based approach. This involves connecting people with and supporting them to access groups and organisations within their local communities. It is hoped that social prescribing might improve health inequities and reduce reliance on healthcare services. In the UK, social prescribing link workers have become core parts of primary care teams. Despite growing literature on the implementation of social prescribing, to date there has been no synthesis that develops a theoretical understanding of the factors that shape link workers' experiences of their role. METHODS: We undertook a meta-ethnographic evidence synthesis of qualitative literature to develop a novel conceptual framework that explains how link workers experience their roles. We identified studies using a systematic search of key databases, Google alerts, and through scanning reference lists of included studies. We followed the eMERGe guidance when conducting and reporting this meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Our synthesis included 21 studies and developed a "line of argument" or overarching conceptual framework which highlighted inherent and interacting tensions present at each of the levels that social prescribing operates. These tensions may arise from a mismatch between the policy logic of social prescribing and the material and structural reality, shaped by social, political, and economic forces, into which it is being implemented. CONCLUSIONS: The tensions highlighted in our review shape link workers' experiences of their role. They may call into question the sustainability of social prescribing and the link worker role as currently implemented, as well as their ability to deliver desired outcomes such as reducing health inequities or healthcare service utilisation. Greater consideration should be given to how the link worker role is defined, deployed, and trained. Furthermore, thought should be given to ensuring that the infrastructure into which social prescribing is being implemented is sufficient to meet needs. Should social prescribing seek to improve outcomes for those experiencing social and economic disadvantage, it may be necessary for social prescribing models to allow for more intensive and longer-term modes of support.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions and potential prescription omissions in older people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) and potential prescription omissions (PPOs) in a Spanish cohort of people living with HIV (PLWH) aged ≥65 years and to identify risk factors for the presence of PIPs and PPOs. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted across 10 public hospitals in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain. Clinical and demographic data were cross-checked against hospital and community pharmacy dispensation registries. PIPs and PPOs were assessed using the American Geriatrics Society (AGS)/Beers and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria. Risk factors for PIPs and PPOs and agreement between AGS/Beers and STOPP/START criteria were statistically analysed. RESULTS: This study included 313 PLWH (median age 72 years), of whom 80.5% were men. PIP prevalence rates were 29.4% and 44.4% based on the AGS/Beers and STOPP criteria, respectively. The concordance between AGS/Beers and STOPP criteria was moderate. Benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors were the chronic comedications most commonly involved in PIPs. PPOs were observed in 61.4% of the patients. The leading omissions were insufficient influenza and pneumococcal vaccine coverage and inadequate bone health-related treatments. The number of chronic comedications, female sex, neuropsychiatric disorders, and cancer diagnosis were risk factors for PIPs, whereas osteopenia and osteoporosis were risk factors for PPOs. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of PIPs and PPOs was observed in our cohort of older PLWH. These findings emphasize the importance of comprehensive medication reviews in this population to reduce inappropriate medication use and address their specific and underserved therapeutic needs.

Liothyronine (LT3) prescribing in England: Are cost constraints inhibiting guideline implementation?

BACKGROUND: Primary hypothyroidism affects about 3% of the general population in Europe. In most cases people with hypothyroidism are treated with levothyroxine. In the context of the 2023 British Thyroid Association guidance and the 2020 Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) ruling, we examined prescribing data for levothyroxine, Natural desiccated thyroid (NDT) and liothyronine by dose, regarding changes over the years 2016-2022. DESIGN: Monthly primary care prescribing data for each British National Formulary code were analysed for levothyroxine, liothyronine and NDT. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: The rolling 12-month total/average of cost or prescribing volume was used to identify the moment of change. Results included number of prescriptions, the actual costs, and the cost/prescription/mcg of drug. RESULTS: Liothyronine: In 2016 94% of the total 74,500 prescriptions were of the 20 mcg dose. In 2020 the percentage prescribed in the 5 mcg and 10 mcg doses started to increase so that by 2022 each reached nearly 27% of total liothyronine prescribing. The average cost/prescription in 2016 of 20 mcg was £404/prescription and this fell by 80% to £101 in 2022; while the 10 mcg cost of £348/prescription fell by only 35% to £255 and the 5 mcg cost of £355/prescription fell by 38% to £242/prescription. The total prescriptions of liothyronine in 2016 were 74,605, falling by 30% up to 2019 when they started to grow again - most recently at 60,990-15% lower than the 2016 figure, with the result that total costs fell by 70% to £9 m/year. CONCLUSIONS: Liothyronine costs fell after the CMA ruling but remain orders of magnitude higher than for levothyroxine. The remaining 0.2% of patients with liothyronine treated hypothyroidism are still absorbing 16% of medication costs. The lower liothyronine 5cmg and 10 mcg doses as recommended by BTA are 240% the costs of the 20 mcg dose. Thus, following latest BTA guidance which recommends the lower liothyronine doses still incurs substantial additional costs vs the prescribing liothyronine in the no longer recommended treatment regime. High drug price continues to impact clinical decisions, potentially limiting liothyronine therapy availability to a considerable number of patients who could benefit from this treatment.

High-Dose Opioid Prescribing in Individuals with Acute Pain: Assessing the Effects of US State Opioid Policies.

BACKGROUND: How state opioid policy environments with multiple concurrent policies affect opioid prescribing to individuals with acute pain is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine how prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pain management clinic regulations, initial prescription duration limits, and mandatory continued medical education affected total and high-dose prescribing. DESIGN: A county-level multiple-policy difference-in-difference event study framework. SUBJECTS: A total of 2,425,643 individuals in a large national commercial insurance deidentified claims database (aged 12-64 years) with acute pain diagnoses and opioid prescriptions from 2007 to 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The total number of acute pain opioid treatment episodes and number of episodes containing high-dose (> 90 morphine equivalent daily dosage (MEDD)) prescriptions. KEY RESULTS: Approximately 7.5% of acute pain episodes were categorized as high-dose episodes. Prescription duration limits were associated with increases in the number of total episodes; no other policy was found to have a significant impact. Beginning five quarters after implementation, counties in states with pain management clinic regulations experienced a sustained 50% relative decline in the number of episodes containing > 90 MEDD prescriptions (95 CIs: (Q5: - 0.506, - 0.144; Q12: - 1.000, - 0.290)). Mandated continuing medical education regarding the treatment of pain was associated with a 50-75% relative increase in number of high-dose episodes following the first year-and-a-half of enactment (95 CIs: (Q7: 0.351, 0.869; Q12: 0.413, 1.107)). Initial prescription duration limits were associated with an initial relative reduction of 25% in high-dose prescribing, with the effect increasing over time (95 CI: (Q12: - 0.967, - 0.335). There was no evidence that PDMPs affected high-dose opioids dispensed to individuals with acute pain. Other high-risk prescribing indicators were explored as well; no consistent policy impacts were found. CONCLUSIONS: State opioid policies may have differential effects on high-dose opioid dispensing in individuals with acute pain. Policymakers should consider effectiveness of individual policies in the presence of other opioid policies to address the ongoing opioid crisis.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Opioid Prescribing on Hospital Discharge Among Older Adults: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in opioid prescribing among racial and ethnic groups have been observed in outpatient and emergency department settings, but it is unknown whether similar disparities exist at discharge among hospitalized older adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine filled opioid prescription rates on hospital discharge by race/ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older discharged from hospital in 2016, without opioid fills in the 90 days prior to hospitalization (opioid-naïve). MAIN MEASURES: Race/ethnicity was categorized by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), grouped as Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, other (American Indian/Alaska Native/unknown/other), and White. The primary outcome was an opioid prescription claim within 2 days of hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among adults with a filled opioid prescription. KEY RESULTS: Among 316,039 previously opioid-naïve beneficiaries (mean age, 76.8 years; 56.2% female), 49,131 (15.5%) filled an opioid prescription within 2 days of hospital discharge. After adjustment, Black beneficiaries were 6% less likely (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97) and Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries were 9% more likely (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.14) to have filled an opioid prescription when compared to White beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries with a filled opioid prescription, mean total MMEs were lower among Black (356.9; adjusted difference - 4%, 95% CI - 7 to - 1%), Hispanic (327.0; adjusted difference - 7%, 95% CI - 10 to - 4%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (328.2; adjusted difference - 8%, 95% CI - 12 to - 4%) beneficiaries when compared to White beneficiaries (409.7). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Black older adults were less likely to fill a new opioid prescription after hospital discharge when compared to White older adults and received lower total MMEs. The factors contributing to these differential prescribing patterns should be investigated further.

A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in a urogynecology practice.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload. STUDY DESIGN: The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

Beyond lectures and practical courses: Teaching pharmacology using imaginative pedagogical tools.

Pharmacology has broadened its scope considerably in recent decades. Initially, it was of interest to chemists, doctors and pharmacists. In recent years, however, it has been incorporated into the teaching of biologists, molecular biologists, biotechnologists, chemical engineers and many health professionals, among others. Traditional teaching methods, such as lectures or laboratory work, have been superseded by the use of new pedagogical approaches to enable a better conceptualization and understanding of the discipline. In this article, we present several new methods that have been used in Spanish universities. Firstly, we describe a teaching network that has allowed the sharing of pedagogical innovations in Spanish universities. A European experience to improve prescribing safety is described in detail. The use of popular films and medical TV series in biomedical students shows how these audiovisual resources can be helpful in teaching pharmacology. The use of virtual worlds is detailed to introduce this new approach to teaching. The increasingly important area of the social aspects of pharmacology is also considered in two sections, one devoted to social pharmacology and the other to the use of learning based on social services to improve understanding of this important area. Finally, the use of Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation in pharmacology allows to know how this approach can help to better evaluate clinical pharmacology students. In conclusion, this article allows to know new pedagogical methods resources used in some Spanish universities that may help to improve the teaching of pharmacology.

Time trends and regional variation in utilization of antidiabetic medicines in China, 2015-2022.

AIM: To assess the use of non-insulin antidiabetic medicines in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the national procurement data for 29 non-insulin antidiabetic medicines from nine subgroups in China from 2015 to 2022. We estimated the number of defined daily doses (DDDs) procured per year in seven regions of China for nine subgroups and adjusted the data by the number of patients with diabetes. For each subgroup, the regional ratio was calculated by comparing the procurement per patient in each region with the procurement nationwide. The regional disparity was the difference between the highest and lowest regional ratios. We compared the medication patterns across regions. RESULTS: Nationally, between 2015 and 2022, the number of DDDs per patient increased from 14.45 to 47.37. The two most commonly used categories were sulphonylurea and biguanides, which increased from 7.04 to 15.39 (119%) and 3.28 to 11.11 (239%) DDDs per patient, respectively. The procurement of new drugs (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) increased quickly and had >5000% relative changes. Particularly for sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors, it increased from 0.08 to 5.03 DDDs (6662%). The southwest region had the highest relative change (319%), while the southern region had the lowest (118%). Biguanide and thiazolidinediones had the lowest (1.19) and highest level (2.21) of regional disparity in 2022, respectively. CONCLUSION: The procurement of non-insulin antidiabetic medicines in China has increased a lot from 2015 to 2022. In terms of DDDs per patient, sulphonylurea ranked first, followed by metformin. The procurement of new drugs increased greatly. A large regional disparity existed in medicine usage and patterns.

Patterns of initial and first-intensifying antidiabetic drug utilization among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Scotland, 2010-2020: A retrospective population-based cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate the utilization and prescribing patterns of antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at treatment initiation and first intensification. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using linked routinely collected data of patients with T2DM who received ADDs between January 2010 and December 2020 in Scotland. The prescribing patterns were quantified using frequency/percentages, absolute/relative change, and trend tests. RESULTS: Overall, 145 909 new ADD users were identified, with approximately 91% (N = 132 382) of patients receiving a single ADD at first treatment initiation. Metformin was the most often prescribed monotherapy (N = 118 737, 89.69%). A total of 50 731 patients (39.40%) who were started on metformin (N = 46 730/118 737, 39.36%) or sulphonylurea (SU; N = 4001/10 029, 39.89%) monotherapy had their treatment intensified with one or more additional ADD. Most initial-metformin (45 963/46 730; 98.36%) and initial-SU users (3894/4001; 97.33%) who added further drugs were intensified with single ADDs. SUs (22 197/45 963; 48.29%) were the most common first-intensifying monotherapy after initial metformin use, but these were replaced by sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in 2019 (SGLT2 inhibitors: 2039/6065, 33.62% vs. SUs: 1924/6065, 31.72%). Metformin was the most frequently added monotherapy to initial SU use (2924/3894, 75.09%). Although the majority of patients received a single ADD, the use of combination therapy significantly increased over time. Nevertheless, there was a significant increasing trend towards prescribing the newer ADD classes (SGLT2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors) as monotherapy or in combination compared with the older ones (SUs, insulin, thiazolidinediones) at both drug initiation and first intensification. CONCLUSIONS: An overall increasing trend in prescribing the newer ADD classes compared to older ADDs was observed. However, metformin remained the most commonly prescribed first-line ADD, while SGLT2 inhibitors replaced SUs as the most common add-on therapy to initial metformin use in 2019.