Effect of a Social Norm Email Feedback Program on the Unnecessary Prescription of Nimodipine in Ambulatory Care of Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Nimodipine is a highly prescribed drug for the treatment of cognitive impairment and dementia in Argentina. There is little evidence to support the use of nimodipine for cognitive impairment and dementia. Objective: To test the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention based on social norm feedback to reduce prescription of nimodipine for cognitive impairment in Argentina. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic parallel-group randomized clinical trial included 2 arms with a 1:1 allocation ratio. General practitioner physicians in the national health care system for older adults in Argentina (INSSJP-PAMI) with history of high nimodipine prescription rate were enrolled. The study was conducted from May 2019 to October 2019, and data were analyzed from November 2019 to February 2020. Interventions: The treatment group received 2 emails with evidence-based information about nimodipine plus the individual's level of nimodipine prescription compared with their peers. The control group received 2 emails with general information about the risks of overprescription in older adults. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative number of nimodipine prescriptions per 1000 prescriptions of all drugs made by the targeted physicians during the 6 months of the study. Secondary outcomes included annual monetary savings attributable to the intervention and physicians' qualitative perceptions of the acceptability of the procedure. Results: Of 1811 physicians enrolled, 906 physicians (354 [39.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.10 [10.73] years) were randomized to treatment and 905 participants (331 [36.6%] women; mean [SD] age, 56.49 [10.47] years) to the control group. Physicians in the treatment group wrote a mean of 93.25 (95% CI, 89.27 to 97.24) prescriptions of nimodipine, compared with 98.99 (95% CI, 95.00 to 102.98) prescriptions among practitioners in the control group during the half-year of the intervention (mean difference, -5.73 [95% CI, -11.38 to -0.10] prescriptions; P = .046), which meant a 5.79% reduction. Regression analysis revealed a significant association of the group condition with number of prescriptions per 1000 total prescriptions when controlling for baseline prescriptions (B = -0.312 [95% CI, -0.465 to -0.160]; P < .001). The observed difference corresponds to a 4.48% reduction in nimodipine prescriptions per 1000 prescriptions of all drugs made by physicians in the treated group compared with the control group. Physicians who effectively opened the email in the treatment group (427 physicians [47.1%]) prescribed the drug 11.3% less compared with the control group (426 physicians) (mean difference, -10.78 [95% CI, -18.53 to -3.03] prescriptions; P = .006). Expenditures were 7.18% lower in the treatment group, resulting in an estimated annual net cost benefit of US $234 893.35 (95% CI, $225 565.35 to $237 112.30). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the social norm email feedback program showed an effect on curbing the nonrecommended prescription of nimodipine. It was highly cost-effective and well accepted by participants. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org identifier: ISRCTN17823729.

Cannabis Use and Risk of Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether cannabis use is associated with a change in the risk of incident nonmedical prescription opioid use and opioid use disorder at 3-year follow-up. METHOD: The authors used logistic regression models to assess prospective associations between cannabis use at wave 1 (2001-2002) and nonmedical prescription opioid use and prescription opioid use disorder at wave 2 (2004-2005) of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Corresponding analyses were performed among adults with moderate or more severe pain and with nonmedical opioid use at wave 1. Cannabis and prescription opioid use were measured with a structured interview (the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV version). Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, anxiety or mood disorders, family history of drug, alcohol, and behavioral problems, and, in opioid use disorder analyses, nonmedical opioid use. RESULTS: In logistic regression models, cannabis use at wave 1 was associated with increased incident nonmedical prescription opioid use (odds ratio=5.78, 95% CI=4.23-7.90) and opioid use disorder (odds ratio=7.76, 95% CI=4.95-12.16) at wave 2. These associations remained significant after adjustment for background characteristics (nonmedical opioid use: adjusted odds ratio=2.62, 95% CI=1.86-3.69; opioid use disorder: adjusted odds ratio=2.18, 95% CI=1.14-4.14). Among adults with pain at wave 1, cannabis use was also associated with increased incident nonmedical opioid use (adjusted odds ratio=2.99, 95% CI=1.63-5.47) at wave 2; it was also associated with increased incident prescription opioid use disorder, although the association fell short of significance (adjusted odds ratio=2.14, 95% CI=0.95-4.83). Among adults with nonmedical opioid use at wave 1, cannabis use was also associated with an increase in nonmedical opioid use (adjusted odds ratio=3.13, 95% CI=1.19-8.23). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use appears to increase rather than decrease the risk of developing nonmedical prescription opioid use and opioid use disorder.

Intended and actual use of self-medication and alternative products during pregnancy by French women.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To identify the proportion of non-pregnant women intending to use self-medication and self-administered alternative products (dietary supplements, essential oils and herbal teas) in the event of pregnancy, and the proportion of pregnant women using these products. (ii) To describe women's risk perception related to these products and the advice given by health professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-eight women (60 non-pregnant and 68 pregnant women) responded to a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The proportion of pregnant women using self-medication was higher than the proportion of non-pregnant women intending to use self-medication (72% vs 48%, P=0.01) and lower for the use of herbal teas (29% vs 63%, P<0.01). There were no differences between the two groups for dietary supplements (25%) and essential oils (18%). Non-prescribed medications were perceived as a risk by 90% of all the women. Dietary supplements were considered as a medication by 68% of pregnant women and 48% of non-pregnant women (P=0.04). Health professionals provided advice for alternative products to 23% of the pregnant women, and 83% of the non-pregnant women expressed the wish to receive advice if they became pregnant. CONCLUSION: Health professionals should inform women, even before pregnancy, about the safe use of medications and alternative products during pregnancy.