Identification of cancer chemotherapy regimens and patient cohorts in administrative claims: challenges, opportunities, and a proposed algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence is a valuable source of information in healthcare. This study describes the challenges and successes during algorithm development to identify cancer cohorts and multi-agent chemotherapy regimens from claims data to perform a comparative effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use. METHODS: Using the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's Distributed Research Network, we iteratively developed and tested a de novo algorithm to accurately identify patients by cancer diagnosis, then extract chemotherapy and G-CSF administrations for a retrospective study of prophylactic G-CSF. RESULTS: After identifying patients with cancer and subsequent chemotherapy exposures, we observed only 12% of patients with cancer received chemotherapy, which is fewer than expected based on prior analyses. Therefore, we reversed the initial inclusion criteria to identify chemotherapy receipt, then prior cancer diagnosis, which increased the number of patients from 2,814 to 3,645, or 68% of patients receiving chemotherapy had diagnoses of interest. Additionally, we excluded patients with cancer diagnoses that differed from those of interest in the 183 days before the index date of G-CSF receipt, including early-stage cancers without G-CSF or chemotherapy exposure. By removing this criterion, we retained 77 patients who were previously excluded. Finally, we incorporated a 5-day window to identify all chemotherapy drugs administered (excluding oral prednisone and methotrexate, as these medications may be used for other non-malignant conditions) as patients may fill oral prescriptions days to weeks prior to infusion. This increased the number of patients with chemotherapy exposures of interest to 6,010. The final cohort of included patients, based on G-CSF exposure, increased from 420 from the initial algorithm to 886 using the final algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Medications used for multiple indications, sensitivity and specificity of administrative codes, and relative timing of medication exposure must all be evaluated to identify patient cohorts receiving chemotherapy from claims data.

An Exploratory Study of Pharmacist Perceptions of Opioid Interventions for Acute Pain.

Background: As the last health care provider encountered before an opioid is dispensed, pharmacists have a vital role in reducing unnecessary opioid exposure while facilitating access to non-opioid alternatives. Objective: To characterize pharmacist perceptions in providing interventions for patients with an opioid prescription for acute pain. Methods: This cross-sectional survey was administered over 3 months to pharmacy preceptors affiliated with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Pharmacy. The electronic survey utilized 7 demographical and baseline questions, 1 open-ended question, and 5 Likert-type scales to assess the following domains: responsibility in making decisions, willingness to provide information, comfort in speaking to patients, willingness to use a standing order, and importance of following up with patients. Results: Of the 380 participants invited to participate, 126 responded to at least one question and 90 completed all survey questions. Most participants were PharmD graduates practicing in hospital and community settings. Participants felt that opioids are frequently overprescribed and pharmacist interventions are often necessary. Most participants reported that pharmacists and physicians share similar responsibilities in making opioid-related decisions. Participants were willing to provide information about opioid alternatives but were only somewhat comfortable speaking to patients. Responses to the open-ended question revealed the following themes: Significance of educating the patient; Importance of alternatives to opioid medications; Impacts of pharmacist interventions; and Need for enhanced collaboration with physicians. Conclusions: Pharmacists face complex issues with limited clinical guidance when providing opioid-related interventions. Future research is needed to develop evidence-based clinical support tools and collaborative practice models.

Effects of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on racial and ethnic disparities in statin treatment among diabetics.

BACKGROUND: Significant racial and ethnic disparities in statin prescribing and utilization have been constantly documented. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether racial/ethnic disparities in statin treatment have decreased among the diabetic population after the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients with diabetes aged 40-75 years old in the Medicare Expenditure Panel Survey (2011-2012 and 2014-2015). Racial and ethnic disparities in the likelihood of statin use and number of statin prescriptions were compared before and after the guideline release. Logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to adjust for patient characteristics. A difference-in-difference model (DID) was used to examine disparity changes. RESULTS: This study included 2584 patients from 2011 to 2012 and 2610 from 2014 to 2015. During 2011-2012, racial/ethnic disparities were significant for the likelihood of statin use. For the number of statin prescriptions, racial disparity was significant, but not for the ethnic disparity. During 2014-2015, racial/ethnic disparities were significant for the likelihood of statin use but were not significant for the number of statin prescriptions. The DID model found that the 2013 guidelines were not associated with a reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in statin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study found persistent disparities in the likelihood of statin use. The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines were not associated with a reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in statin treatment.