Patterns of prescription opioid use before total hip and knee replacement among US Medicare enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of prescription opioid use before total joint replacement (TJR) and factors associated with continuous use of opioids before TJR. DESIGN: We conducted an observational cohort study among Medicare enrollees aged ≥65 years who underwent TJR between 2010 and 2014. Preoperative opioid use was defined as having any opioid prescription in the 12-month period before TJR. Patients who had an opioid prescription every month for a 12-month period were defined as continuous users. We examined patients' demographics, pain-related conditions, medication use, other comorbidities, healthcare utilization and their association with use of opioids before TJR. RESULTS: A total of 473,781 patients underwent TJR:,155,516 THR and 318,265 TKR. Among the total cohort, 60.2% patients had any use of opioids and of those, 12.4% used opioids at least once a month continuously over the 12-month baseline period. Correlates of continuous opioid use included African American race (OR = 2.14, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 2.01-2.28, compared to White patients), history of drug abuse (OR = 5.18, 95% CI = 3.95-6.79) and back pain (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 2.24-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients undergoing TJR, over 60% ever used opioids and 12.4% of them continuously used opioids in the 12-month prior to surgery. Utilization of opioids became more frequent and high-dosed near the surgery. History of drug abuse, back pain, and African American race were strongly associated with continuous use of opioids preoperatively. Further research is needed to determine short-term and long-term risks of preoperative use of opioids in TJR patients and to optimize pre- and post-TJR pain management of patients with arthritis.

Cost-effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in older patients with multiple comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib or tramadol for OA patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to examine treatment with these analgesics after standard of care (SOC) - acetaminophen and corticosteroid injections - failed to control pain. NSAID regimens were evaluated with and without proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We evaluated over-the-counter (OTC) regimens where available. Estimates of treatment efficacy (pain reduction, occurring in ∼57% of patients on all regimens) and toxicity (major cardiac or gastrointestinal toxicity or fractures, risk ranging from 1.09% with celecoxib to 5.62% with tramadol) were derived from published literature. Annual costs came from Red Book Online(®). Outcomes were discounted at 3%/year and included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key input parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Adding ibuprofen to SOC was cost saving, increasing QALYs by 0.07 while decreasing cost by $800. Incorporating OTC naproxen rather than ibuprofen added 0.01 QALYs and increased costs by $300, resulting in an ICER of $54,800/QALY. Using prescription naproxen with OTC PPIs led to an ICER of $76,700/QALY, while use of prescription naproxen with prescription PPIs resulted in an ICER of $252,300/QALY. Regimens including tramadol or celecoxib cost more but added fewer QALYs and thus were dominated by several of the naproxen-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple comorbidities, naproxen- and ibuprofen-containing regimens are more effective and cost-effective in managing OA pain than opioids, celecoxib or SOC.

Patterns of treatment among a cohort of older low-income adults starting new medications for osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: Among 125,954 new users of osteoporosis (OP) medications, 77 % of subjects stopped OP medications, and 23 % of subjects added or started a new OP medication during follow-up, with the first addition or start of a new OP medication occurring in a mean of 739 days after original OP treatment. INTRODUCTION: We described patterns and predictors of OP medication use, focusing on treatment changes over time. METHODS: We analyzed health and pharmacy insurance claims for a large cohort of low-income Medicare beneficiaries with a drug benefit for the years 1998-2008. Study subjects had documented Medicare claims and no receipt of OP medications (i.e., bisphosphonate, raloxifene, calcitonin, teriparatide, or hormonal therapy) during a baseline of 180 days. Subjects were then required to start an OP medication. Baseline patient and prescriber characteristics were assessed in multivariable Cox regression models to identify correlates of adding or starting a new OP medication. Fractures, bone mineral density testing, and visits with endocrinologists or rheumatologists occurring after baseline were also examined as correlates. RESULTS: We included 125,954 new users of OP medications with a mean age of 78 years, 97 % female, and 92 % white. OP medication prescribers included specialists (i.e., endocrinologists or rheumatologists) (6.2 %), orthopedic surgeons (1.0 %), primary care providers (64.9 %), other physicians (3.7 %), and missing (24.1 %). Seventy-seven percent of subjects stopped OP medications, and 23 % of subjects added or started a new OP medication during follow-up, with the first addition or start of a new OP medication occurring in a mean of 739 days after original OP treatment; 4 % added or started a new OP medication more than once. In fully adjusted models, many baseline variables correlated with starting a second OP medication. Post-baseline fractures [hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.71-1.82] and bone mineral density testing (HR 2.94, 95 % CI 2.86-3.03) were strong predictors. CONCLUSION: Approximately one quarter of patients starting an OP medication added or started a new OP medication during follow-up. Long-term sequential treatment strategy trials would inform optimal medication treatment for OP.

Pharmacologic regimens for knee osteoarthritis prevention: can they be cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the target populations and drug efficacy, toxicity, cost, and initiation age thresholds under which a pharmacologic regimen for knee osteoarthritis (OA) prevention could be cost-effective. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated state-transition simulation model of knee OA, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using disease-modifying OA drugs (DMOADs) as prophylaxis for the disease. We assessed four cohorts at varying risk for developing OA: (1) no risk factors, (2) obese, (3) history of knee injury, and (4) high-risk (obese with history of knee injury). The base case DMOAD was initiated at age 50 with 40% efficacy in the first year, 5% failure per subsequent year, 0.22% major toxicity, and annual cost of $1,000. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For the high-risk cohort, base case prophylaxis increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.04 and lifetime costs by $4,600, and produced an ICER of $118,000 per QALY gained. ICERs >$150,000/QALY were observed when comparing the base case DMOAD to the standard of care in the knee injury only cohort; for the obese only and no risk factors cohorts, the base case DMOAD was less cost-effective than the standard of care. Regimens priced at $3,000 per year and higher demonstrated ICERs above cost-effectiveness thresholds consistent with current US standards. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of DMOADs for OA prevention for persons at high risk for incident OA may be comparable to other accepted preventive therapies.

Resource utilization in cancer patients with bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (BONJ) is an emerging oral complication that occurs most commonly in the setting of high-dose bisphosphonate therapy for cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the health care-related costs associated with a diagnosis of BONJ in patients with cancer evaluated and managed at one tertiary oral medicine practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective electronic medical record review of cancer patients with BONJ. All health care-related resources were abstracted using a structured chart abstraction tool; data captured included medications, imaging studies, laboratory investigations, procedures, and visits. Standardized references were used to assign costs in 2010 US dollars. RESULTS: Ninety-two cancer patients with BONJ were identified who were followed for a median of 12 months. The median cost of a case of BONJ was $1667 (interquartile range from $976 to $3350). Medication costs comprised the majority (42%) of the total costs, followed by procedural interventions (22%), clinic visits (19.5%), and imaging studies (13.8%). Patient factors associated with higher median costs included a greater number of involved oral quadrants and more advanced BONJ stage. CONCLUSION: There are considerable costs associated with the diagnosis and management of BONJ in patients with cancer, with medications accounting for nearly half of resource expenditures.

Disease-modifying drugs for knee osteoarthritis: can they be cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) are under development. Our goal was to determine efficacy, toxicity, and cost thresholds under which DMOADs would be a cost-effective knee OA treatment. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to compare guideline-concordant care to strategies that insert DMOADs into the care sequence. The guideline-concordant care sequence included conservative pain management, corticosteroid injections, total knee replacement (TKR), and revision TKR. Base case DMOAD characteristics included: 50% chance of suspending progression in the first year (resumption rate of 10% thereafter) and 30% pain relief among those with suspended progression; 0.5%/year risk of major toxicity; and costs of $1,000/year. In sensitivity analyses, we varied suspended progression (20-100%), pain relief (10-100%), major toxicity (0.1-2%), and cost ($1,000-$7,000). Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and TKR utilization. RESULTS: Base case DMOADs added 4.00 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and $230,000 per 100 persons, with an ICER of $57,500/QALY. DMOADs reduced need for TKR by 15%. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief. DMOADs costing $3,000/year achieved ICERs below $100,000/QALY if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were 20% and 70%. At a cost of $5,000, these ICERs were attained if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were both 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Cost, suspended progression, and pain relief are key drivers of value for DMOADs. Plausible combinations of these factors could reduce need for TKR and satisfy commonly cited cost-effectiveness criteria.

Postfracture interventions disseminated through health care and drug insurers: attempting to integrate fragmented health care delivery.

Osteoporosis care after a fracture is often suboptimal. Suboptimal treatment seems to be most common in fragmented health care systems. We examined the literature to assess possible causes for suboptimal postfracture osteoporosis care within fragmented health care systems. The review of the literature did not attempt to meta-analyze prior studies. We found several possible methods for improving postfracture osteoporosis care in a fragmented health care system. These include changes in health care financing, application of information technology, incorporation of case management, the use of system champions, and dissemination of performance measures. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these potential levers for improvement were explored. Postfracture osteoporosis care is sub-optimal and challenging to improve in fragmented health care delivery systems.

Antidepressants and fracture risk in older adults: a comparative safety analysis.

We examined variations in fracture rates among patients initiated on antidepressant drug treatment as identified from Medicare data in two US states and assessed whether the observed variation could be explained by affinity for serotonin transport receptors. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare fracture rates of the hip, humerus, pelvis, wrist, and a composite of these, among propensity score-matched cohorts of users of secondary amine tricyclics, tertiary amine tricyclics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and atypical antidepressants. As compared with secondary amine tricyclics, SSRIs showed the highest association with composite fracture rate (hazard ratio 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.52), followed by atypical antidepressants (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.96-1.31) and tertiary amine tricyclics (hazard ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.87-1.18). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Although SSRI use was associated with the highest rate of fractures, variation in fracture risk across specific antidepressant medications did not depend on affinity for serotonin transport receptors.

Measuring quality of care for rheumatic diseases using an electronic medical record.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was twofold: (1) to determine how best to measure adherence with time-dependent quality indicators (QIs) related to laboratory monitoring, and (2) to assess the accuracy and efficiency of gathering QI adherence information from an electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: A random sample of 100 patients were selected who had at least three visits with the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at Brigham and Women's Hospital Arthritis Center in 2005. Using the EMR, it was determined whether patients had been prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (QI #1) and if patients starting therapy received appropriate baseline laboratory testing (QI #2). For patients consistently prescribed a DMARD, adherence with follow-up testing (QI #3) was calculated using three different methods, the Calendar, Interval and Rolling Interval METHOD: . RESULTS: It was found that 97% of patients were prescribed a DMARD (QI #1) and baseline tests were completed in 50% of patients (QI #2). For follow-up testing (QI #3), mean adherence was 60% for the Calendar Method, 35% for the Interval Method, and 48% for the Rolling Interval Method. Using the Rolling Interval Method, adherence rates were similar across drug and laboratory testing type. CONCLUSIONS: Results for adherence with laboratory testing QIs for DMARD use differed depending on how the QIs were measured, suggesting that care must be taken in clearly defining methods. While EMRs will provide important opportunities for measuring adherence with QIs, they also present challenges that must be examined before widespread adoption of these data collection methods.

Quality Measures 101: what every rheumatologist should know.

In this paper, we review the essentials of quality measurement for rheumatologists. We will focus on four specific issues: why should rheumatology focus on quality measures now? how can rheumatology construct and assess quality measures? what can rheumatologists expect to achieve with quality measures? will quality measures be used for reimbursement?

Clinical presentation of myocardial infarction contributes to lower use of coronary angiography in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high mortality following myocardial infarction (MI), but are less likely to undergo coronary angiography than those without CKD. Whether this phenomenon is explained by differences in the presentation of MI or by bias against performing coronary angiography in patients with CKD is unclear. We examined the clinical presentation of 1876 elderly patients who presented with MI and categorized them by estimated glomerular filtration rate: >60 ml/min (no/mild CKD), 30-60 ml/min (CKD Stage 3) or <30 ml/min (CKD Stage 4/5). Compared with patients with no/mild CKD, patients with CKD Stage 3 or Stage 4/5 had more comorbidity, greater prior nursing home use, and higher frequency of conduction abnormalities or anterior infarction. By contrast, peak creatinine kinase-MB fraction (CK-MB) concentrations were lower and ST-elevation MI was less common in patients with CKD Stage 3 or Stage 4/5. In univariate analyses, patients with CKD Stage 4/5 (odds ratio (OR)=0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-0.50) or Stage 3 (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.45-0.73) were markedly less likely to undergo angiography than subjects with no/mild CKD. After multivariable adjustment, the association of CKD Stage 3 with the use of coronary angiography was attenuated (OR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.03), but CKD Stage 4/5 remained strongly associated with lower use (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.80). Clinical features of MI are different in patients with and without CKD and may partly explain the low use of angiography in patients with CKD Stage 3. However, the clinical features of MI do not account for its underuse in MI patients with CKD Stages 4/5. Whether reduced use of angiography in patients with advanced CKD is justified must be evaluated in formal risk-benefit analyses.

Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England.

Large population-based surveys have shown that approximately 30% of people over age 65 years have osteoporosis and that 17% of the population over 65 years will sustain a fracture during their lifetime. Many people with osteoporosis are never being evaluated even though effective treatments are available. We examined why primary care physicians order few bone mineral density scans. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians practicing in any of the six New England states. Target physician specialties included internal medicine, general practitioners/family physicians, and obstetrician-gynecologists who had a facsimile number listed with the American Medical Association. Demographics, practice characteristics, use of bone densitometry, and attitudes regarding osteoporosis, bone densitometry and health maintenance were assessed by questionnaire. Twelve percent (n=494) of the physicians responded to the questionnaire. Respondents were similar to non-respondents with respect to years of practice, training and geographical state, though they were more likely to be female (p < or =0.05). Respondents had a mean age of 51 years, and 51% were trained in internal medicine, 25% in general practice/family practice and 24% in obstetrics-gynecology. The mean number of self-reported bone densitometry referrals per month was 10+/-11, and 25% of respondents reported that they referred fewer than 4 patients per month. In adjusted logistic models, factors significantly associated with referring fewer than 4 patients per month were: training in internal medicine (odds ratio (OR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.9) or general practice/family practice (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2) versus obstetrics-gynecology; practicing in an urban setting (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.9) or rural/small town setting (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) versus a suburban setting; spending less than 50% of professional time in patient care (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.7-9.5); seeing the lowest proportion of postmenopausal women (OR 2.5., 95% CI 1.2-5.3); the belief that calcium and vitamin D are adequate to treat osteoporosis (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.5); and the belief that osteoporosis treatment should not be based on bone density results (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1). Potentially modifiable physician beliefs and a number of practice characteristics are associated with low referral rates for bone densitometry. Educational strategies aimed at improving the use of bone density testing should consider these factors.

Should postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis who are starting corticosteroid treatment be screened for osteoporosis? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for preventing corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. METHODS: Simulated cohorts of postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting corticosteroid treatment were examined. A Markov decision analysis model was developed to compare different management strategies, including watchful waiting, screen and treat, and empirical treatment. Treatment thresholds for the screen and treat strategy were varied from bone mineral density (BMD) T scores <-1.0 to BMD T scores <-4.0. RESULTS: Compared with a watchful waiting approach, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a strategy of screen and treat with alendronate at a BMD T score of <-1.0 was $92,600 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This result was sensitive to the cost and efficacy of osteoporosis therapy and, importantly, to the treatment threshold. At a treatment threshold of a BMD T score <-2.5, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening and treating was $76,100 per QALY. None of these results differed substantially for women taking estrogen replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a strategy of screening and treating postmenopausal female RA patients with BMD T scores of < -1.0, compared with watchful waiting, was greater than that of other well-accepted medical interventions. The cost-effectiveness ratios were more acceptable when a T score treatment threshold of <-2.5 was used. These conclusions are limited by the lack of data on fracture and treatment efficacy in corticosteroid-treated patients.

Cultural and economic factors that (mis)shape antibiotic use: the nonpharmacologic basis of therapeutics.

The use of antibiotics in both ambulatory and inpatient settings is heavily shaped by cultural and economic factors as well as by microbiological considerations. These nonpharmacologic factors are relevant to clinicians and policymakers because of the clinical and fiscal toll of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, including excessive use, preventable adverse effects, and the increasing prevalence of resistant organisms. An understanding of the determinants of antibiotic consumption is critical to explain current patterns of use and to devise programs to reduce inappropriate use. Patient motivations include the desire for a tangible product of the clinical encounter coupled with incorrect perceptions of the effectiveness of antibiotics, particularly in viral infections. Physician behavior can be explained by such factors as lack of information, a desire to satisfy patient demand, and pressure from managed care organizations to speed throughput. Marketing campaigns directed at both physicians and patients further serve to increase demand, especially for newer, costlier products. Studies of antibiotic use patterns in inpatient and outpatient care consistently demonstrate considerable inappropriate prescribing, which is likely to exacerbate the emergence of resistant organisms. Several approaches have been shown to improve the rationality of antibiotic use. Computer-based algorithms or reminders can prompt physicians to improve antibiotic choices at the time of prescribing; paper-based order entry forms can achieve the same goal. Interactive educational outreach ("academic detailing") is a practical implementation of social marketing principles to improve antibiotic use. Public education programs directed at consumers can help to reduce the inappropriate patient demand that helps to drive much improper antibiotic prescribing.

Selecting target conditions for quality of care improvement in vulnerable older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To identify a set of geriatric conditions as optimal targets for quality improvement to be used in a quality measurement system for vulnerable older adults. DESIGN: Discussion and two rounds of ranking of conditions by a panel of geriatric clinical experts informed by literature reviews. METHODS: A list of 78 conditions common among vulnerable older people was reduced to 35 on the basis of their (1) prevalence, (2) impact on health and quality of life, (3) effectiveness of interventions in improving mortality and quality of life, (4) disparity in the quality of care across providers and geographic areas, and (5) feasibility of obtaining the data needed to test compliance with quality indicators. A panel of 12 experts in geriatric care discussed and then ranked the 35 conditions on the basis of the same five criteria. We then selected 21 conditions, based on panelists' iterative rankings. Using available national data, we compiled information about prevalence of the selected conditions for community-dwelling older people and older nursing home residents and estimated the proportion of inpatient and outpatient care attributable to the selected conditions. RESULTS: The 21 conditions selected as targets for quality improvement among vulnerable older adults include (in rank order): pharmacologic management; depression; dementia; heart failure; stroke (and atrial fibrillation); hospitalization and surgery; falls and mobility disorders; diabetes mellitus; end-of-life care; ischemic heart disease; hypertension; pressure ulcers; osteoporosis; urinary incontinence; pain management; preventive services; hearing impairment; pneumonia and influenza; vision impairment; malnutrition; and osteoarthritis. The selected conditions had mean rank scores from 1.2 to 3.8, and those excluded from 4.6 to 6.9, on a scale from 1 (highest ranking) to 7 (lowest ranking). Prevalence of the selected conditions ranges from 10 to 50% among community-dwelling older adults and from 25 to 80% in nursing home residents for the six most common selected conditions. The 21 target conditions account for at least 43% of all acute hospital discharges and 33% of physician office visits among persons 65 years of age and older. Actual figures must be higher because several of the selected conditions (e.g., end-of-life care) are not recorded as diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-one conditions were selected as targets for quality improvement in vulnerable older people for use in a quality measurement system. The 21 geriatric conditions selected are highly prevalent in this group and likely account for more than half of the care provided to this group in hospital and ambulatory settings.

Costs, outcomes, and patient satisfaction by provider type for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a critical review of the literature and proposed methodologic standards.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of care provided by generalists with that provided by specialists for patients with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies published between 1986 and April 1996 were identified through a MEDLINE search. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that compared generalists' and specialists' treatment preferences, appropriateness of care, or outcomes with regard to musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions were examined. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were reviewed for methodologic rigor and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Low back pain is treated by many types of providers, without consistent differences in outcomes across provider types. In one study, however, patients were more satisfied with chiropractic care than with care provided by primary care physicians, although the former cost twice as much as the latter. For osteoarthritis of the hip, rheumatologists and primary care providers reported using different therapeutic regimens. For acute mono- and oligoarthritis, rheumatologists performed arthrocentesis more appropriately than nonrheumatologists and produced shorter durations of hospitalization. In the management of gout, rheumatologists used colchicine during the introduction of urate-lowering therapy more appropriately than other providers. In two population-based cohorts of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, patients cared for by rheumatologists were prescribed significantly more disease-modifying agents and had less disability than patients cared for by generalists. CONCLUSIONS: Although empirical data are scant, there seem to be differences between generalists and specialists for a range of outcomes in various musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions. Studies to data have important methodologic limitations that need to be addressed in future research.