Identifying prescribing cascades in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: The calcium channel blocker-diuretic prescribing cascade.

PURPOSE: Prescribing cascades occur when a physician prescribes a new drug to address the side-effect of another drug. Persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are at increased risk for prescribing cascades. Our objective was to develop an approach to estimating the proportion of calcium channel blocker-diuretic (CCB-diuretic) prescribing cascades among persons with ADRD in two U.S. health plans. METHODS: We identified patients aged ≥50 on January 1, 2017, dispensed a drug to treat ADRD in the 365-days prior to/on cohort entry date. Patients had medical/pharmacy coverage for 1 year before and through cohort entry. We excluded individuals with an institutional stay encounter in the 45 days prior to cohort entry and censored patients based on: disenrollment from coverage, death, or end of data. We identified incident and prevalent CCB use in the 183-days following cohort entry, and identified subsequent incident diuretic use among incident and prevalent CCB-users within 365-days from cohort entry. RESULTS: There were 121 538 eligible patients. Approximately 62% were female, with a mean age of 79.5 (SD ±8.6). Overall 2.1% of the cohort experienced a prevalent CCB-diuretic prescribing cascade with 1586 incident diuretic-users among 36 462 prevalent CCB-users (4.3%, 95% CI 4.1-4.6%]); and there were161 incident diuretic-users among 3304 incident CCB-users (4.9%, 95% CI 4.2-5.7%) (incident CCB-diuretic cascade). CONCLUSIONS: We describe an approach to identify prescribing cascades in persons with ADRD, which can be used to assess the proportion of prescribing cascades in large cohorts. We determined the proportion of CCB-diuretic prescribing cascades was low.

Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine : A Survey of U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly instigated a global pandemic. Vaccine development is proceeding at an unprecedented pace. Once available, it will be important to maximize vaccine uptake and coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 among a representative sample of adults in the United States and identify predictors of and reasons for vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey, fielded from 16 through 20 April 2020. SETTING: Representative sample of adults residing in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 1000 adults drawn from the AmeriSpeak probability-based research panel, covering approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. MEASUREMENTS: Intent to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was measured with the question, "When a vaccine for the coronavirus becomes available, will you get vaccinated?" Response options were "yes," "no," and "not sure." Participants who responded "no" or "not sure" were asked to provide a reason. RESULTS: A total of 991 AmeriSpeak panel members responded. Overall, 57.6% of participants (n = 571) intended to be vaccinated, 31.6% (n = 313) were not sure, and 10.8% (n = 107) did not intend to be vaccinated. Factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy (a response of "no" or "not sure") included younger age, Black race, lower educational attainment, and not having received the influenza vaccine in the prior year. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy included vaccine-specific concerns, a need for more information, antivaccine attitudes or beliefs, and a lack of trust. LIMITATIONS: Participants' intent to be vaccinated was explored before a vaccine was available and when the pandemic was affecting a narrower swath of the United States. Questions about specific information or factors that might increase vaccination acceptance were not included. The survey response rate was 16.1%. CONCLUSION: This national survey, conducted during the coronavirus pandemic, revealed that approximately 3 in 10 adults were not sure they would accept vaccination and 1 in 10 did not intend to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Targeted and multipronged efforts will be needed to increase acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes available. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

COVID-19 Vaccine Administration: Phase 2 of an in Progress Review in New York State Local Health Departments.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York State (NYS), local health departments (LHDs) have worked to mitigate the highly infectious disease. As lead public health experts in their communities, LHDs are responsible for providing communicable disease control, emergency response, and establishing immunization programs, including leading large-scale vaccine distribution efforts. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand the processes used by LHDs in NYS to administer COVID-19 vaccines, as well as identify successes and challenges, and highlight lessons learned to improve future mass vaccination campaigns. Data were collected in two phases: (1) extant data collection of public communications; and (2) discussion groups with public health leaders across the state. Notable themes from both phases include: partnerships, programmatic elements, communication, role of LHD, State-LHD coordination, and human and physical resources. Analysis of both public and internal communications from LHDs across NYS revealed several core challenges LHDs faced during COVID-19 vaccine rollout and identified innovative solutions that LHDs used to facilitate vaccine access, administration, and uptake in their communities. Findings from this multi-phase qualitative analysis support the need to bolster the capacity and training of the local public health workforce to ensure preparedness for future public health emergencies.

Can sharing clinic notes improve communication and promote self-management? A qualitative study of patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of sharing clinic notes on communication and self-management among patients with COPD and to develop recommendations for writing patient-centered notes. METHODS: Thirty patients with COPD participated in 'think-aloud' interviews in which they reviewed their COPD-specific clinic note. Interviews were coded using conventional content analysis, organized by the six-function communication framework. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly White (93.3%), with a mean age of 65.5 years. More than half had a high school degree or less, half reported difficulty understanding spoken information, and nearly half sometimes need help reading medical materials. Patients indicated notes provided an opportunity to learn details of their condition and facilitated information sharing - strengthening information exchange. Reading notes enabled self-management through motivation, prompting information seeking, and reminding them of action steps. Patients reacted positively to statements suggesting the provider listened to them, saw them as a person, and was attentive to details, which fostered the relationship. Most patients reacted negatively to medical terminology, incorrect information, and wording that was perceived as disparaging. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing clinic notes with patients can promote information exchange, enable self-management, and strengthen the patient-provider relationship. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating patients' recommendations for writing notes could strengthen the benefits of sharing notes.

The geriatrics research instrument library: A resource for guiding instrument selection for researchers studying older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

Background: After the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act in the U.S., the Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy eliminates upper-age limits for research participation unless risk justified. Broader inclusion will necessitate the use of reliable instruments in research that characterize the health status and function of older adults with multiple chronic conditions. As there is a plethora of such instruments, the Geriatrics Research Instrument Library (GRIL) was developed as freely available online resource of data collection instruments commonly used in gerontological research. GRIL has been revised and updated by the Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth (AGING) Initiative, a joint endeavor of the Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) and the Older Americans Independence Centers (OAICs). Methods: Extensive PubMed literature searches and domain expert feedback were utilized to inventory and update GRIL through the addition of instruments and compiling of instrument metadata. GRIL is hosted on the National Institute on Aging OAIC Coordinating Center website with a platform utilizing Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) and an Adobe ColdFusion application server. Tracking statistics are collected using Google Analytics. Results: Presently, GRIL includes 175 instruments across 18 domains, including instrument metadata such as instrument description, copyright information, completion time estimates, keywords, available translations, and a link and reference to the original manuscript describing the instrument. The GRIL website includes user-friendly features such as mobile platforming and resource links. Conclusions: GRIL provides a user-friendly public resource that facilitates clinical researchers in efficiently selecting appropriate instruments to measure clinical outcomes relevant to older adults across a full range of domains.

Antidopaminergic-Antiparkinsonian Medication Prescribing Cascade in Persons with Alzheimer's Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Persons living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be at increased risk for prescribing cascades due to greater multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and the need for more complex care. Our objective was to assess the proportion of the antidopaminergic-antiparkinsonian medication prescribing cascades among persons living with Alzheimer's disease. SETTING: Two large administrative claims databases in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: We identified patients aged ≥50 on January 1, 2017, who were dispensed a drug used to treat Alzheimer's disease for at least 1 day in the 365 days prior to or on cohort entry date and who had medical and pharmacy coverage in the 365 days prior to the cohort entry date. We excluded individuals with a recent institutional stay. We identified incident antidopaminergic (antipsychotic/metoclopramide) use in the 183 days following cohort entry and identified subsequent incident antiparkinsonian drug use within 8 to 365 days. RESULTS: There were 121,538 patients with Alzheimer's disease eligible for inclusion. Approximately 62% were women with a mean age of 79.5 (SD ± 8.6). The mean number of drugs dispensed was 9.2 (SD ± 4.9). There were 36 incident antiparkinsonian users among 4,534 incident antipsychotic/metoclopramide users (0.8%). CONCLUSION: We determined that the proportion of antidopaminergic-antiparkinsonian medication prescribing cascades, widely considered as high-priority, was low. Our approach can be used to assess the proportion of prescribing cascades in populations considered to be at high risk and to prioritize system-level interventional efforts to improve medication safety in these patients.

Prescribing cascades in persons with Alzheimer's disease: engaging patients, caregivers, and providers in a qualitative evaluation of print educational materials.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing cascades occur when the side effect of a drug is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a second drug is prescribed to address the side effect. Persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD) are at increased risk of prescribing cascades due to greater multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and complexity of care. The objective of this study was to evaluate educational materials about prescribing cascades in persons with AD, and elicit input on their use in a future trial. METHODS: We interviewed community-dwelling adults with either an AD diagnosis or a prescription drug used to treat AD (n = 12), caregivers of patients meeting the same criteria (n = 14), and providers (n = 15). We coded interview transcripts and organized themes according to the communication-human information processing model. We revised the materials based on the interviews, and surveyed participating caregivers and providers for their reactions to the revised materials. RESULTS: Analysis of patients', caregivers', and providers' comments suggest: (a) Providers had conflicting views about the messaging of materials; (b) Caregivers were likely to read letters addressed to patients; (c) Providers were likely to ignore letters, but were receptive to patient/caregiver-initiated conversations; (d) Patients and caregivers had difficulty understanding prescribing cascades; (e) Providers worried that mailed materials would undermine trust; (f) Participants had mixed views on how materials might affect the clinical encounter; (g) Participants felt that materials would improve patient/caregiver engagement. When surveyed, most providers found the revised materials informative and actionable, and most caregivers found them understandable and useful. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of educational materials about prescribing cascades in patients with AD provides strong support for engaging caregivers to communicate with providers about prescribing cascades. By giving patients and caregivers a basic description of the prescribing cascade concept, our educational materials may help them prepare for a conversation with the provider, who can then tailor the discussion of the possible cascade to the specific needs of the individual patient and caregiver. However, evidence on whether materials can stimulate such conversations awaits testing in a future trial. LAY SUMMARY: Patient, caregiver and provider thoughts on educational materials about prescribing and medication safety Prescribing cascades occur when the side effect of a medication is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a second medication is prescribed to treat the side effect. Persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD) are at increased risk of prescribing cascades because they often have more medical conditions, more medications, and more complex care. The goal of this study was to evaluate mailed educational materials about prescribing cascades in persons with AD, and get input on their use in a future study. We interviewed 12 adults with AD, or prescribed a medication to treat AD, 14 caregivers of persons with AD, and 15 providers. We reviewed the interview transcripts to identify important findings about our educational materials. We edited the materials based on the interviews, and sent participating caregivers and providers a questionnaire to get their reactions to the new materials. Important findings from the interviews suggest: (a) Providers had conflicting views about the recommendations given; (b) Caregivers were likely to read letters addressed to patients; (c) Providers were likely to ignore letters, but were receptive to patients/caregivers introducing the topic; (d) Patients and caregivers had difficulty understanding prescribing cascades; (e) Providers worried mailed materials would undermine trust; (f) Participants had mixed views on how materials might affect a doctor's appointment; (g) Participants felt strongly that materials would improve patient/caregiver engagement. When surveyed, almost all providers found the revised materials informative and actionable; and most caregivers found them understandable and useful. These findings provide strong support for engaging caregivers to communicate with providers about prescribing cascades. The educational materials may help patients and caregivers prepare for a conversation with the provider, who can then tailor the discussion of the possible cascade to the specific needs of the individual patient and caregiver. However, evidence on whether materials can stimulate such conversations awaits testing in a future study.

Reducing Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits in Patients With Venous Thromboembolism Using a Multicomponent Care Transition Intervention.

Preventing utilization of hospital and emergency department after diagnosis of venous thromboembolism is a complex problem. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of a care transition intervention on hospitalizations and emergency department visits after venous thromboembolism. We randomized adults diagnosed with a new episode of venous thromboembolism to usual care or a multicomponent intervention that included a home pharmacist visit in the week after randomization (typically occurring at time of discharge), illustrated medication instructions distributed during home visit, and a follow-up phone call with an anticoagulation expert scheduled for 8 to 30 days from time of randomization. Through physician chart review of the 90 days following randomization, we measured the incidence rate of hospital and emergency department visits for each group and their ratio. We also determined which visits were related to recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or anticoagulation and which where preventable. We enrolled 77 intervention and 85 control patients. The incidence rate was 4.50 versus 6.01 visits per 1000 patient days in the intervention versus control group (incidence rate ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.40-1.27). Most visits in the control group were not related to venous thromboembolism or bleeding (21%) and of those that were, most were not preventable (25%). The adjusted incidence rate ratio for the intervention was 1.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.57-1.91). Our patients had a significant number of hospital and emergency department visits after diagnosis. Most visits were not related to recurrent venous thromboembolism or bleeding and of those that were, most were not preventable. Our multicomponent intervention did not decrease hospitalizations and emergency department visits.