Prevalence of contraindicated combinations amid behavioral and mental health medications filled in a pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral or mental health disorders are common in children, adolescents, and young adults. Medication use is increasingly common, with few data describing drug-drug combinations in ambulatory settings. The objectives of this study were to describe the pharmaco-epidemiology of behavioral and mental health (BMH) medications among children, adolescents, and young adults in New York Medicaid and assess the prevalence of contraindicated drug pairs within this population. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional study evaluated New York State Medicaid managed care and fee-for-service enrollees under 21 years of age dispensed BMH medications in 2014. Main outcomes included number of members with prescriptions filled; number filling > 1 medication prescription concurrently for ≥ 30 days (polypharmacy), and number and nature of potentially contraindicated drug pairs. RESULTS: Of 2,430,434 children, adolescents, and young adults, 422,486 (17.4%) had a visit associated with a BMH diagnosis and 141,363 (5.8%) received one or more BMH medications. With 84 distinct medications evaluated, polypharmacy was common, experienced by 53,388 individuals (37.8% of those with a prescription filled), generating 11,115 distinct drug combinations. 392 individuals filled prescriptions for a contraindicated pair of ≥ 2 BMH medications for 30 days or longer. With ≥ 1 day overlap, 651 were exposed to contraindicated medications. The most common contraindicated pairs increased potential risk for prolonged QT interval and serotonin syndrome (n = 378 and n = 250 patients, respectively). Most combinations involved ziprasidone (3247.1 per 10,000 ziprasidone prescriptions filled). CONCLUSIONS: With nearly 6% of members dispensed a BMH medication, contraindicated drug pairs were uncommon. However, any of those combinations represent a potential risk. Clinicians should attend to the balance of potential risks and benefits before contraindicated pairs are dispensed. The methodology described could serve as a basis for monitoring such rare instances and might reduce harm.

An Exploratory Study of Physician Decision-Making When Treating Uncontrolled COPD.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend triple therapy maintenance inhalers for patients with recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, these maintenance therapies are underutilized. This study aimed to understand how physicians make COPD treatment decisions, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating, non-interventional study used a cross-sectional online survey that was administered to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five fictitious vignettes detailing common symptoms experienced by patients with COPD. Survey questions included factors physicians consider in their decisions, and perceived barriers to prescribing treatments. Repeated measures multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate how likely physicians were to switch to triple therapy versus no change to patient's current maintenance therapy or change to another maintenance therapy. Results: In total, 200 physicians completed the survey. Cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were reported as the most common barriers physicians consider in their prescribing decisions. Physicians were more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, insurance status, and clinical guidelines in their decision. Physicians with more experience treating patients with COPD, and those who treat more patients with COPD per week, were more likely to switch to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of factors that can influence physicians' decisions when prescribing treatments for patients with COPD, including considerations of treatment cost, patient access and adherence, patient comorbidities, efficacy of current treatment, clinical guidelines, and provider's level of experience treating COPD. Further research may help elucidate the relative importance of the factors influencing physicians' decisions and inform what types of decision-support tools would be most beneficial.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms can be effectively managed with maintenance therapies, which are treatments that are taken routinely to help improve symptoms. A combination of three different therapies (triple therapy maintenance) has been shown to be more effective than a combination of two different therapies (dual therapy maintenance) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, maintenance therapies, including triple therapy, are underutilized. This study aimed to explore how physicians make their treatment decisions for patients with COPD, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized. To do so, we administered a survey to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five clinically based, fictitious profiles, or vignettes, of patients with COPD, with common symptoms and patient characteristics being described. Physicians were then asked to answer questions about what treatment they would prescribe for each patient, and any factors they considered when deciding on a treatment for a patient. We found that cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were the most common barriers that physicians considered when choosing a treatment. Physicians were also more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to a triple therapy maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, patient's insurance status, and clinical guidelines when making their decisions. Our study shows that there are many complex factors that influence physicians' decisions when deciding on a treatment for patients with COPD.

Changes in reasons for visits to primary care after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: An international comparative study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped healthcare delivery worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To explore potential changes in the reasons for visits and modality of care in primary care settings through the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study from 2018-2021. We examined visit volume, modality, and reasons for visits to primary care in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Peru, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and the USA. The analysis involved a comparison between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. RESULTS: There were more than 215 million visits from over 38 million patients during the study period in INTRePID primary care settings. Most INTRePID countries experienced a decline in monthly visit rates during the first year of the pandemic, with rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranging from RR:0.57 (95%CI:0.49-0.66) to RR:0.90 (95%CI:0.83-0.98), except for in Canada (RR:0.99, 95%CI:0.94-1.05) and Norway (RR:1.00, 95%CI:0.92-1.10), where rates remained stable and in Australia where rates increased (RR:1.19, 95%CI:1.11-1.28). Argentina, China, and Singapore had limited or no adoption of virtual care, whereas the remaining INTRePID countries varied in the extent of virtual care utilization. In Peru, virtual visits accounted for 7.34% (95%CI:7.33%-7.35%) of all interactions in the initial year of the pandemic, dipping to 5.22% (95%CI:5.21%-5.23%) in the subsequent year. However, in Canada 75.30% (95%CI:75.20%-75.40%) of the visits in the first year were virtual, decreasing to 62.77% (95%CI:62.66%-62.88%) in the second year. Diabetes, hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia and general health exams were in the top 10 reasons for visits in 2019 for all countries. Anxiety, depression and/or other mental health related reasons were among the top 10 reasons for virtual visits in all countries that had virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in changes in reasons for visits to primary care, with virtual care mitigating visit volume disruptions in many countries.

Changes in primary care visits for respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational study by the International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID).

Objectives: The majority of patients with respiratory illness are seen in primary care settings. Given COVID-19 is predominantly a respiratory illness, the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID), assessed the pandemic impact on primary care visits for respiratory illnesses. Design: Definitions for respiratory illness types were agreed on collectively. Monthly visit counts with diagnosis were shared centrally for analysis. Setting: Primary care settings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden and the United States. Participants: Over 38 million patients seen in primary care settings in INTRePID countries before and during the pandemic, from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Main outcome measures: Relative change in the monthly mean number of visits before and after the onset of the pandemic for acute infectious respiratory disease visits including influenza, upper and lower respiratory tract infections and chronic respiratory disease visits including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory allergies, and other respiratory diseases. Results: INTRePID countries reported a marked decrease in the average monthly visits for respiratory illness. Changes in visits varied from -10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): -33.1 to +11.3%] in Norway to -79.9% (95% CI: -86.4% to -73.4%) in China for acute infectious respiratory disease visits and - 2.1% (95% CI: -12.1 to +7.8%) in Peru to -59.9% (95% CI: -68.6% to -51.3%) in China for chronic respiratory illness visits. While seasonal variation in allergic respiratory illness continued during the pandemic, there was essentially no spike in influenza illness during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care visits for respiratory presentations. Primary care continued to provide services for respiratory illness, although there was a decrease in infectious illness during the COVID pandemic. Understanding the role of primary care may provide valuable information for COVID-19 recovery efforts and planning for future global emergencies.