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.

Changes in the Appropriateness of US Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing After the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of 2016-2021 Data.

BACKGROUND: No national study has evaluated changes in the appropriateness of US outpatient antibiotic prescribing across all conditions and age groups after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in March 2020. METHODS: This was an interrupted time series analysis of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a national commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database. Analyses included prescriptions for antibiotics dispensed to children and adults enrolled during each month during 2017-2021. For each prescription, we applied our previously developed antibiotic appropriateness classification scheme to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes on medical claims occurring on or during the 3 days prior to dispensing. Outcomes included the monthly proportion of antibiotic prescriptions that were inappropriate and the monthly proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription. Using segmented regression models, we assessed for level and slope changes in outcomes in March 2020. RESULTS: Analyses included 37 566 581 enrollees, of whom 19 154 059 (51.0%) were female. The proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription decreased in March 2020 (level decrease: -0.80 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -1.09% to -.51%]) and subsequently increased (slope increase: 0.02 percentage points per month [95% CI, .01%-.03%]), partly because overall antibiotic dispensing rebounded and partly because the proportion of antibiotic prescriptions that were inappropriate increased (slope increase: 0.11 percentage points per month [95% CI, .04%-.18%]). In December 2021, the proportion of enrollees with ≥1 inappropriate prescription equaled the corresponding proportion in December 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an initial decline, the proportion of enrollees exposed to inappropriate antibiotics returned to baseline levels by December 2021. Findings underscore the continued importance of outpatient antibiotic stewardship initiatives.

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.

Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. RESULTS: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Legalization of Cannabis Does Not Reduce Opioid Prescribing in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cannabis may provide inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with an alternative to opioids for pain. METHODS: We conducted a difference-in-difference analysis using MarketScan. Changes over time in rates of opioid prescribing were compared in states with legalized cannabis to those without. RESULTS: We identified 6,240 patients with IBD in states with legalized cannabis and 79,272 patients with IBD in states without legalized cannabis. The rate of opioid prescribing decreased over time in both groups and were not significantly different (attributed differential = 0.34, confidence interval -13.02 to 13.70, P = 0.96). DISCUSSION: Opioid prescribing decreased from 2009 to 2016 among patients with IBD in both states with legalized and state without legalized cannabis, similar to what has been observed nationally across a variety of diseases. Cannabis legalization was not associated with a lower rate of opioid prescribing for patients with IBD.

Cultivating global antimicrobial stewardship: linguistic and cultural validation of the Australian National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey appropriateness assessment definitions for Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is driven by inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing. The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is an Australian-developed auditing platform to assist in the assessments of antimicrobial quality by antimicrobial stewardship programmes using consensus-based definitions. The NAPS has demonstrated to be transferable to other countries. Its adaptation to Portugal could improve knowledge about the quality of antimicrobial prescribing in the country. OBJECTIVES: To translate, culturally adapt, and validate the Australian Hospital NAPS appropriateness assessment definitions of antimicrobial prescribing for Portugal. METHODS: International recommendations on translation and adaptation of instruments were followed. Two panels of experts participated in the process, using Zoom® for discussions and interviews, and Google Forms® for assessing vignettes. A native English-speaking person proficient in Portuguese conducted the back-translation. SPSS v.28 and Excel® were used for validity calculation. RESULTS: The Portuguese version was well accepted, its implementation being perceived as desirable and feasible by the experts. Validation process showed a Fleiss' κ score of 0.483 (95% CI, 0.415-0.551, P < 0.005) for appropriateness, and an average agreement with the Australian NAPS team of 0.8 and 0.9, respectively, for appropriateness and reasons for inappropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: The Portuguese version of the Australian Hospital NAPS appropriateness assessment definitions of antimicrobial prescribing, the first to be translated from English, was deemed non-inferior to the original, was well accepted, considered to be desirable and feasible, and could inspire other countries, particularly other Portuguese-speaking countries, to adapt and validate them in their own contexts, reinforcing the possibility of transferring NAPS use beyond Australia.

Effect of methenamine hippurate shortage on antibiotic prescribing for urinary tract infections in Norway-an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of conclusive evidence of effect, methenamine hippurate is widely prescribed as preventive treatment for recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in Norway. A national discontinuation of methenamine hippurate treatment due to a 4-month drug shortage in 2019 presented an opportunity to evaluate its preventive effect on UTIs among regular users. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of the methenamine hippurate drug shortage on prescription frequency of UTI antibiotics. METHODS: Data from The Norwegian Prescription Database was analysed using an interrupted time series design. The time series consisted of 56 time periods of 14 days. The model included two naturally occurring interruptions: (i) the methenamine hippurate drug shortage, and (ii) reintroduction of the drug. The study population were 18 345 women ≥50 years receiving ≥2 prescriptions of methenamine hippurate in the study period before the shortage. Main outcome measure was number of prescriptions of UTI antibiotics per 1000 methenamine hippurate users. Prescription rates of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections were analysed to assess external events affecting antibiotic prescribing patterns. RESULTS: We found a significant increase of 2.41 prescriptions per 1000 methenamine hippurate users per 14-day period during the drug shortage (95%CI 1.39, 3.43, P < 0.001), followed by a significant reduction of -2.64 prescriptions after reintroduction (95%CI -3.66, -1.63, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the methenamine hippurate drug shortage, we found a significant increase in prescribing trend for UTI antibiotics followed by a significant decrease in prescribing trend after reintroduction. This change in trend seems to reflect a preventive effect of the drug on recurrent UTIs.

Temporal trends in antibiotic prescribing and serious and nonserious infections in children presenting to general practice: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study of 162 507 individuals.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to understand the trends in paediatric antibiotic prescribing and serious and nonserious infections to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for children in ambulatory care. OBJECTIVES: Assessing trends in paediatric antibiotic prescribing and infection incidence in general practice from 2002 to 2022. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using INTEGO network data from 162 507 patients in Flanders (Belgium), we calculated antibiotic prescribing rates and proportions alongside incidence rates of serious and nonserious infections, stratified by age (0-1, 2-6, 7-12 years) and municipality. We performed autoregressive moving average time-series analyses and seasonality analyses. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2022, antibiotic prescribing rate decreased significantly: 584/1000 person-years (PY) (95% CI 571-597) to 484/1000PY (95% CI 478-491); so did antibiotic overall prescribing proportion: 46.3% (95% CI 45.1-47.6) to 23.3% (95% CI 22.9-23.7) (59.3% amoxicillin and 17.8% broad spectrum). Prescribing proportions dropped significantly for nonserious (45.6% to 20.9%) and increased for serious infections (64.1% to 69.8%). Proportions significantly dropped for acute suppurative otitis media (74.7% to 64.1%), upper respiratory tract infections (44.9% to 16.6%), bronchitis/bronchiolitis (73.6% to 44.1%) and acute tonsillopharyngitis (59.5% to 21.7%), while significantly increasing for pneumonia (65.2% to 80.2%). Nonserious and serious infection incidence rates increased from 785/1000PY and 34.2/1000PY to 1223/1000PY and 64.1/1000PY, respectively. Blood and CRP testing proportions increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing in general practice for children declined from 2002 to 2022. Further targeted antibiotic stewardship initiatives are needed to reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and antibiotic prescribing for conditions such as otitis media and bronchitis/bronchiolitis.

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.

Hospitalization, Overdose, and Mortality After Opioid Prescriptions Tied to Ophthalmic Surgery.

PURPOSE: Opioid prescriptions continue to carry significant short- and long-term systemic risks, even after ophthalmic surgery. The goal of this study was to identify any association of opioid prescription, after ophthalmic surgery, with postoperative hospitalization, opioid overdose, opioid dependence, and all-cause mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing an ophthalmic surgery in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. METHODS: We used deidentified administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to create 3 cohorts of patients for analysis from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2022. The first cohort consisted of 1-to-1 propensity score-matched patients who had undergone ophthalmic surgery and had filled a prescription for an opioid and not filled a prescription for an opioid. The second cohort consisted of patients who were considered opioid naïve and had filled a prescription for an opioid matched to patients who had not filled a prescription for an opioid. The last cohort consisted of opioid-naïve patients matched across the following morphine milligram equivalents (MME) groups: ≤ 40, 41-80, and > 80. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short- and long-term risks of hospitalization, opioid overdose, opioid dependency/abuse, and death were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 1 577 692 patients who had undergone an ophthalmic surgery, with 312 580 (20%) filling an opioid prescription. Among all patients, filling an opioid prescription after an ophthalmic surgery was associated with increased mortality (hazard rate [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.31; P < 0.001), hospitalization (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.49-1.53; P < 0.001), opioid overdose (HR, 7.31; 95% CI, 6.20-8.61, P < 0.001), and opioid dependency (HR, 13.05; 95% CI, 11.48-14.84; P < 0.001) compared with no opioid prescription. Furthermore, we found that higher MME doses of opioids were associated with higher rates of mortality, hospitalization, and abuse/dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who filled an opioid prescription after an ophthalmic surgery experienced higher rates of mortality, hospitalization, episodes of opioid overdose, and opioid dependence compared with patients who did not fill an opioid prescription. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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.

Examining treatment targets and equity in bone-active medication use within secondary fracture prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review seeks to evaluate the proportion of fragility fracture patients screened in secondary fracture prevention programs who were indicated for pharmacological treatment, received prescriptions for bone-active medications, and initiated the prescribed medication. Additionally, the study aims to analyze equity in pharmacological treatment by examining equity-related variables including age, sex, gender, race, education, income, and geographic location. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to ascertain the proportion of fragility fracture patients indicated for treatment who received prescriptions and/or initiated bone-active medication through secondary fracture prevention programs. We also examined treatment indications reported in studies and eligibility criteria to confirm patients who were eligible for treatment. To compute the pooled proportions for medication prescription and initiation, we carried out a single group proportional meta-analysis. We also extracted the proportions of patients who received a prescription and/or began treatment based on age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, location, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: This review included 122 studies covering 114 programs. The pooled prescription rate was 77%, and the estimated medication initiation rate was 71%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment initiation between the Fracture Liaison Service and other programs. Across all studies, age, sex, and socioeconomic status were the only equity variables reported in relation to treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review emphasizes the need for standardized reporting guidelines in post-fracture interventions. Moreover, considering equity stratifiers in the analysis of health outcomes will help address inequities and improve the overall quality and reach of secondary fracture prevention programs.

Introduction of an order set after hip fracture improves osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence: a population-based before-after analysis.

We found that a standardized order set after hip fracture increased initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication and increased persistence at 1 year, but did not reduce secondary fractures. BACKGROUND: A treatment gap exists after osteoporosis-related fractures. Introducing standardized care can improve treatment. We evaluated the impact of a hip fracture order set (OS) on anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) initiation, persistence, and secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: In 2015, one hospital in Manitoba, Canada, introduced a hip fracture OS including recommendations for the initiation of AOM (OS group). A control group was identified from the other hospitals in the same region. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked administrative health data. All individuals 50 + years with surgical treatment for low-energy hip fracture between 2010 and 2019 were included and followed for AOM initiation, medication persistence at 1 year, and secondary fractures. Between-group differences for each year were assessed using chi-square tests. Logistic regression models tested the impact of socio-demographic and clinical factors on initiation, persistence of AOM. Cox regression tested the risk of secondary fracture. RESULTS: No baseline differences between OS group (813 patients) and control group (2150 patients) were observed in demographics, socioeconomic factors, or comorbidities. An increase in post-fracture AOM initiation was seen with OS introduction (OS group year before 16.7% versus year after 48.6%, p < 0.001). No change was seen in the control group. Persistence on AOM also increased (OS group year before 17.7% versus year after 28.4%, p < 0.001). No difference in secondary fractures was observed (OS group 19.8% versus control group 18.8%, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Introduction of a hip fracture OS significantly increased AOM initiation and persistence at 1-year post-fracture. There was no significant difference in secondary fractures.

Evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on DXA waiting lists and osteoporosis prescription trends in England 2019-2023.

This study uses NHS waiting times and osteoporosis medication community prescription datasets to assess the impact of COVID-19 on DXA waits and osteoporosis medication patterns in England. Results show significant increases in DXA waiting list times and variation in prescription rates. Investment is needed to improve waiting list times. PURPOSE: This study investigates the impact of COVID-19 on DXA scan waiting lists, service recovery and osteoporosis medication prescriptions in the NHS following the March 2020 national lockdowns and staff redeployment. METHODS: Data from March 2019 to June 2023, including NHS digital diagnostics waiting times (DM01) and osteoporosis medication prescriptions from the English Prescribing Dataset (EPD), were analysed. This encompassed total waiting list data across England's seven regions and prescribing patterns for various osteoporosis medications. Analyses included total activity figures and regression analysis to estimate expected activity without COVID-19, using R for all data analysis. RESULTS: In England, DXA waiting lists have grown significantly, with the yearly mean waiting list length increasing from 31,851 in 2019 to 65,757 in 2023. The percentage of patients waiting over 6 weeks for DXA scans rose from 0.9% in 2019 to 40% in 2020, and those waiting over 13 weeks increased from 0.1% in 2019 to 16.7% in 2020. Prescription trends varied, with increases in denosumab, ibandronic acid and risedronate sodium and decreases in alendronic acid, raloxifene hydrochloride and teriparatide. A notable overall prescription decrease occurred in the second quarter of 2020. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has significantly increased DXA scan waiting lists with ongoing recovery challenges. There is a noticeable disparity in DXA service access across England. Osteoporosis care, indicated by medication prescriptions, also declined during the pandemic. Addressing these issues requires focused investment and effort to improve DXA scan waiting times and overall access to osteoporosis care in England.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Prescribing of Pain Medication in US Primary Care Settings, 1999-2019: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND: Policy initiatives have attempted to reduce healthcare inequalities in the USA, but evidence on whether these initiatives have reduced racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment in primary care is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether racial and ethnic disparities in medication prescribed for pain in primary care settings have diminished over a 21-year period from 1999 to 2019. DESIGN: An annual, representative cross-sectional probability sample of visits to US primary care physicians, taken from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. PATIENTS: Pain-related visits to primary care physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Prescriptions for opioid and non-opioid analgesics. KEY RESULTS: Of 599,293 (16%) sampled visits, 94,422 were pain-related, representing a population-weighted estimate of 143 million visits made annually to primary care physicians for pain. Relative risk analysis controlling for insurance, pain type, and other potential confounds showed no difference in pain medication prescribed between Black and White patients (p = .121). However, White patients were 1.61 (95% CI 1.32-1.97) and Black patients 1.57 (95% CI 1.26-1.95) times more likely to be prescribed opioids than a more underrepresented group consisting of Asian, Native-Hawaiian/Pacific-Islander, and American-Indian/Alaska-Natives (ps < .001). Non-Hispanic/Latino patients were 1.32 (95% CI 1.18-1.45) times more likely to receive opioids for pain than Hispanic/Latino patients (p < .001). Penalized cubic spline regression found no substantive narrowing of disparities over time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that additional intervention strategies, or better implementation of existing strategies, are needed to eliminate ethnic and racial disparities in pain treatment towards the goal of equitable healthcare.

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.

Association Between Cost-Sharing and Buprenorphine Prescription Abandonment.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled. PARTICIPANTS: Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.

Utilization and related harms of systemic glucocorticosteroids for atopic dermatitis: claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticosteroids (SGCs) are used in the short-term treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), but are not recommended for long-term use because they are associated with severe side-effects. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the utilization and potentially negative effects of SGC use for AD in German statutory health insurance (SHI) claims data. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of a large nationwide SHI dataset. SGC drug prescriptions and incidences of predefined comorbidities after drug initiation that were known to be potentially harmful side-effects were analysed. SGC use was quantified by (-definition 1) the number of quarters with at least one SGC prescription and (definition 2) the defined daily doses (DDD). Comparisons were adjusted for age, sex and morbidity. RESULTS: The AD prevalence was 4.07% in 2020 (4.12% women, 3.42% men). During this period 9.91% of people with AD were prescribed SGCs compared with 5.54% in people without AD (P < 0.01). Prescribing of SGCs was significantly higher in women (10.20% vs. 9.42% in men, P < 0.01) and in the elderly. AD and SGC prevalence varied regionally. In a 3-year follow-up period, 58% of people with AD receiving a SGC were prescribed SGCs in > one quarter and 15% in > six quarters. The odds of developing osteoporosis [odds ratio (OR) 3.90 -(definition 1) and 1.80 (definition 2)] and diabetes [OR 1.90 (definition 1) and 1.38 (definition 2)] were significantly higher in people with AD on SGCs, especially in the frequently prescribed group compared with the rarely prescribed group, regardless of quantified use. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of people with AD in Germany are prescribed long-term SGCs. The onset of medical conditions known to be harmful effects of steroids was significantly more frequent in those who were frequently prescribed SGCs, indicating the need for optimized healthcare.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a condition that causes severe itching and dry skin. AD is common and affects almost 100 000 people in Germany. The treatment for AD with systemic glucocorticosteroids (SGCs) should be limited to short-term use, typically lasting up to 3 weeks during periods of acute flares. This study aimed to investigate how often and for how long people with AD in Germany use SGCs and whether there are any adverse effects associated with their use, using data from health insurance claims. We found that a significant number of people with AD were frequently prescribed SGCs for prolonged periods of time, which could increase the risk of side-effects such as osteoporosis, diabetes, gastritis, depression and oesophageal reflux. Overall, our study findings highlight the importance of reducing the overuse of SGCs and advocate the use of approved long-term medications for people with AD, to reduce the risks of harmful side-effects.

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.

Risk of postpartum readmission after hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and variation by discharge antihypertensive medication prescription.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have a high rate of postpartum readmission. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether the type of antihypertensive medication prescribed at discharge was associated with postpartum readmission after a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of 57,254 pregnancies complicated by hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 2012 and 2018 in the electronic obstetrical database of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Postpartum readmissions occurred within 6 weeks after discharge from delivery hospitalization. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between the type of antihypertensive medication prescription at discharge (none, labetalol only, nifedipine only, or 2 or more antihypertensive medications) and postpartum readmission, adjusted for type of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, final inpatient systolic and diastolic blood pressures, age, body mass index, mode of delivery, insurance status, race and ethnicity, delivery facility, comorbidity score, smoking, preterm delivery, parity, and Neighborhood Deprivation Index. RESULTS: Among eligible patients with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, 1696 (3.0%) were readmitted within 6 weeks. Approximately 86% of patients were discharged without a prescription for antihypertensive medication; among those discharged with a prescription for antihypertensive medication, most were prescribed either labetalol only (54%) or nifedipine only (30%). The unadjusted readmission risk was the highest for patients discharged with a prescription for labetalol only (7.6%), lower for those discharged with a prescription for nifedipine only (3.6%) or 2 or more antihypertensive medications (3.2%), and the lowest for those discharged without a prescription for antihypertensive medication (2.5%). In the adjusted models, compared with discharge without a prescription for antihypertensive medication, discharge with a prescription for labetalol only was associated with a 63% (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) greater incidence of postpartum readmission, and discharge with a prescription for nifedipine only and discharge with a prescription for 2 or more antihypertensive medications were associated with 26% (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.93) and 47% (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.74) lower incidence of postpartum readmission, respectively. There was no strong evidence to suggest that the effect of the type of antihypertensive medication at discharge on the incidence of readmission varied by race and ethnicity (interaction P=.88). The results indicating an elevated risk associated with labetalol use were consistent in models that excluded patients with prepregnancy hypertension. CONCLUSION: Discharge with a prescription for nifedipine alone or multiple antihypertensive medications (vs no medication) was associated with a lower incidence of readmission, whereas discharge with a prescription for labetalol alone was associated with an elevated readmission incidence. A large-scale, prospective research to compare the effectiveness of commonly prescribed hypertension medications at discharge is warranted.