The Health System Costs of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing: A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study Using Linked Health Administrative Databases in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the health system costs from hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and medications due to potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in Ontario, Canada, at the population-level. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of individuals ≥ 66 years of age and prescribed at least one medication from April 2002 to March 2015 was identified using linked population-level health administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified as having PIP or no PIP by applying a subset of the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing/Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria. The number of days spent in hospital, new medications prescribed, and ED visits in the 90 days following PIP or patient index date were captured, as well as the total costs from each of these health services. Count regression models were used to generate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for each outcome given the presence of PIP versus no PIP and combined with the prevalence of PIP to generate population attributable fractions (PAFs). The PAF was then multiplied by the cost for each health service to obtain the costs attributable to PIP in the whole cohort, and by age and sex. RESULTS: PIP was associated with an increased rate of hospitalization (IRR 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.72-2.82), ED visits (IRR 1.87, 95% CI 1.82-1.92), and newly prescribed medications (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.13-1.14), resulting in PAFs of 55.7, 37.9, and 5.0% for each outcome, respectively. PIP was associated with 38.8% of the total spent on these healthcare services ($1.22 billion) in the 90 days after PIP. Costs attributable to PIP decreased with age despite increasing prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: PIP in older adults is a significant source of health system costs from healthcare service use beyond medication costs, with a significant portion of hospitalizations and ED visit costs attributable to PIP. Future work should focus on identifying strategies and priorities for intervention.

Health care providers' roles and responsibilities in management of polypharmacy: Results of a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the roles that allow interprofessional teams to effectively manage older patients experiencing polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To identify and examine the consensus on salient interprofessional roles, responsibilities and competencies required in managing polypharmacy. METHODS: Four focus groups with 35 team members practising in geriatrics were generated to inform survey development. The sessions generated 63 competencies, roles or responsibilities, which were categorized into 4 domains defined by the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. The resulting survey was administered nationally to geriatric health care professionals who were asked to rate the importance of each item in managing polypharmacy; we sought agreement within and across professions using a confirmatory 2-round Delphi method. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 98 survey respondents and round 2 by 72. There was high intra-professional and interprofessional consensus regarding the importance of competencies among physicians, nurses and pharmacists; though pharmacists rated fewer competencies as important. Less consensus was observed among other health care professionals or they indicated the nonimportance of competencies despite focus group discussion to the contrary. DISCUSSION: Although there is a strong consensus of polypharmacy management competencies across team members who have been more traditionally involved in medication management, there continue to be health care providers with differing understandings of competencies that may contribute to reduced reliance on medication. Lower importance ratings suggest pharmacists may not acknowledge or recognize their own potential roles in interprofessional polypharmacy management. CONCLUSION: Further exploration to understand the underutilization of professional expertise in managing polypharmacy will contribute to refining role clarity and translating competencies in practical settings, as well as guiding educators regarding curricular content.

Interprovincial Variation of Psychotropic Prescriptions Dispensed to Older Canadian Adults.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of psychotropic medications among the elderly has garnered attention due to concerns about safety and degree of efficacy, but may be used differently across regions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, and trazodone prescriptions dispensed to seniors ( ≥ 65 years) leveraging IQVIA (Durham, NC) GPM data in 2013. We report the units dispensed (per 100 seniors) by province. RESULTS: Nationally, on average, 26,210 units of antipsychotics, 24,257 of benzodiazepines, and 7,519 of trazodone were dispensed in 2013 for every 100 seniors; reports varied across Canada. The rate of antipsychotic and benzodiazepine prescribing was highest in New Brunswick (AP: 35,375 units per 100, BZD: 43,989 units per 100), and lowest in Newfoundland & Labrador for antipsychotics (20,974 per 100) and Saskatchewan for benzodiazepines (12,692 per 100). Trazodone unit dispensation rates were highest in Nova Scotia (9,164 per 100) and lowest in Newfoundland & Labrador (2,968 per 100). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable geographic variation in the prescribing patterns of antipsychotics, benzodiazepine, and trazodone. This study serves as the first step in understanding these differences, while future work is needed to develop region-specific strategies to optimize the prescribing of psychotropic medications to older Canadian adults.

Comparative, cross-sectional study of the format, content and timing of medication safety letters issued in Canada, the USA and the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess consistency in the format and content, and overlap of subject and timing, of medication safety letters issued by regulatory health authorities to healthcare providers in Canada, the USA and the UK. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study comparing medication safety letters issued for the purpose of alerting healthcare providers to newly identified medication problems associated with medications already on the market. SETTING: Online databases operated by Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency were searched to select medication safety letters issued between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Format, content and timing of each medication safety letter were assessed using an abstraction tool comprising 21 characteristics deemed relevant by consensus of the research team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included, first, characteristics (format and content) of medication safety letters and second, overlap of subject and release date across countries. RESULTS: Of 330 medication safety letters identified, 227 dealt with unique issues relating to medications available in all three countries. Of these 227 letters, 21 (9%) medication problems were the subject of letters released in all three countries; 40 (18%) in two countries and 166 (73%) in only one country. Only 13 (62%) of the 21 letters issued in all three countries were released within 6 months of each other. CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancies in both the subject and timing of medication safety letters issued by health authorities in three countries (Canada, the USA and the UK) where medical practice is otherwise comparable, raising questions about why, how and when medication problems are identified and communicated to healthcare providers by the authorities. More rapid communication of medication problems and better alignment between authorities could enhance patient safety.

Health system costs of potentially inappropriate prescribing in Ontario, Canada: a protocol for a population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older persons and contribute significantly to emergency department visits, hospitalisations and mortality. ADEs are often due to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) or potentially inappropriate omissions (PIO), and are avoidable if inappropriate prescriptions or omissions are identified and prevented. Identifying PIP/PIO at the population level through the application of PIP/PIO assessment tools to health administrative data can provide a unique opportunity to assess the economic burden of PIP/PIO on the healthcare system beyond medication costs which is yet to be done. The objective of this study is to assess the economic burden associated with PIP/PIO and to estimate the incremental costs associated with distinct PIP/PIO in the province of Ontario. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a retrospective cohort study using Ontario's health administrative databases. Eligible patients aged 66 years and older who were prescribed at least one medication between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2014 (approximately 2.4 million patients) will be included. Population attributable fraction methodology will be used to assess the overall burden of PIP in Ontario, while regression analyses will be used to estimate the incremental costs of having specific PIP criteria and aid in prioritising targets for intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada. Dissemination will occur via publication, presentation at national and international conferences, and knowledge exchange with various stakeholders.

Lack of Evidence to Guide Deprescribing of Antihyperglycemics: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Individualizing glycemic targets to goals of care and time to benefit in persons with type 2 diabetes is good practice, particularly in populations at risk of hypoglycemia and adverse outcomes relating to the use of antihyperglycemics. Guidelines acknowledge the need for relaxed targets in frail older adults, but there is little guidance on how to safely deprescribe (i.e. stop, reduce or substitute) antihyperglycemics. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to synthesize evidence from all studies evaluating the effects of deprescribing versus continuing antihyperglycemics in older adults with type 2 diabetes. To this end, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (July 2015) for controlled studies evaluating the effects of deprescribing antihyperglycemics in adults with type 2 diabetes. All such studies were eligible for inclusion in our study, and two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment and a narrative summary were completed. RESULTS: We identified two controlled before-and-after studies, both of very low quality. One study found that an educational intervention decreased glyburide use while not compromising glucose control. The other reported that cessation of antihyperglycemics in elderly nursing home patients resulted in a non-significant increase in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C). No significant change in hypoglycemia rate was found in the only study with this outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence available regarding deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications. Adequately powered, high-quality studies, particularly in the elderly and with clinically important outcomes, are required to support evidence-based decision-making. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017748.

Diffusion of Innovations model helps interpret the comparative uptake of two methodological innovations: co-authorship network analysis and recommendations for the integration of novel methods in practice.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the diffusion of methodological innovation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative case study analysis of the diffusion of two methods that summarize confounder information into a single score: disease risk score (DRS) and high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS). We completed systematic searches to identify DRS and hdPS papers in the field of pharmacoepidemiology through to the end of 2013, plotted the number of papers and unique authors over time, and created sociograms and animations to visualize co-authorship networks. First and last author affiliations were used to ascribe institutional contributions to each paper and network. RESULTS: We identified 43 DRS papers by 153 authors since 1981, reflecting slow uptake during initial periods of uncertainty and broader diffusion since 2001 linked to early adopters from Vanderbilt. We identified 44 hdPS papers by 147 authors since 2009, reflecting rapid and integrated diffusion, likely facilitated by opinion leaders, early presentation at conferences, easily accessible statistical code, and improvement in funding. Most contributions (87% DRS, 96% hdPS) were from North America. CONCLUSION: When proposing new methods, authors are encouraged to consider innovation attributes and early evaluation to improve knowledge translation of their innovations for integration into practice, and we provide recommendations for consideration.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in long-term care (LTC) patients: validation of the 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria in a LTC population--a protocol for a cross-sectional comparison of clinical and health administrative data.

INTRODUCTION: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is frequent and problematic in older patients. Identifying PIP is necessary to improve prescribing quality; ideally, this should be performed at the population level. Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) and Beers criteria were developed to identify PIP in clinical settings and are useful at the individual patient level; however, they are time-consuming and costly to apply. Only a subset of these criteria is applicable to routinely collected population-level health administrative data (HAD) because the clinical information necessary to implement these tools is often missing from databases. The performance of subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria in HAD compared with clinical data from the same patients is unknown; furthermore, the performance of the updated 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria compared with one another is also unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional study of linked HAD and clinical data will be conducted to validate the subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applicable to HAD by comparing their performance when applied to clinical and HAD for the same patients. Eligible patients will be 66 years and over and recently admitted to 1 of 6 long-term care facilities in Ottawa, Ontario. The target sample size is 275, but may be less if statistical significance can be achieved sooner. Medication, diagnostic and clinical data will be collected by a consultant pharmacist. The main outcome measure is the proportion of PIP missed by the subset of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applied to HAD when compared with clinical data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ottawa Health Services Network Research Ethics Board, the Bruyère Continuing Care Research Ethics Board and the ethics board of the City of Ottawa Long Term Care Homes. Dissemination will occur via publication, national and international conference presentations, and exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02523482.