Patterns of Opioid Prescriptions in the Veterans Health Administration for Patients With Chronic Low-Back Pain After the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to severe disruptions in health care and a relaxation of rules surrounding opioid prescribing-changes which led to concerns about increased reliance on opioids for chronic pain and a resurgence of opioid-related harms. Although some studies found that opioid prescriptions increased in the first 6 months of the pandemic, we know little about the longer-term effects of the pandemic on opioid prescriptions. Further, despite the prevalence of pain in veterans, we know little about patterns of opioid prescriptions in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) associated with the pandemic. Using a retrospective cohort of VA patients with chronic low-back pain, we examined the proportion of patients with an opioid prescription and mean morphine milligram equivalents over a 3-year period-1 year prior to and 2 years after the pandemic's onset. Analyses revealed that both measures fell during the entire observation period. The largest decrease in the odds of filling an opioid prescription occurred in the first quarter of the pandemic, but this downward trend continued throughout the observation period, albeit at a slower pace. Clinically meaningful differences in opioid prescriptions and dose over time did not emerge based on patient race or rurality; however, differences emerged between female and male veterans, with decreases in opioid prescriptions slowing more markedly for women after the pandemic onset. These findings suggest that the pandemic was not associated with short- or long-term increases in opioid prescriptions or doses in the VA. PERSPECTIVE: This article examines opioid prescribing over a 3-year period-1 year prior to and 2 years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic-for VA patients with chronic low-back pain. Results indicate that, despite disruptions to health care, opioid prescriptions and doses decreased over the entire observation period.

Lessons and Outcomes of Mobile Acute Care for Elders Consultation in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the implementation and effects of Mobile Acute Care for Elders (MACE) consultation at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. INTERVENTION: Veterans aged 65 or older who were admitted to the medicine service between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, were screened for geriatric syndromes via review of medical records within 48 hours of admission. If the screen was positive, the MACE team offered the admitting team a same-day consultation involving comprehensive geriatric assessment and ongoing collaboration with the admitting team and supportive services to implement patient-centric recommendations for geriatric syndromes. RESULTS: Veterans seen by MACE (n = 421) were compared with those with positive screens but without consultation (n = 372). The two groups did not significantly differ in age, comorbidity, sex, or race. All outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, readmission costs) were in the expected direction for patients receiving MACE but did not reach statistical significance. Patients receiving MACE had lower odds of 30-day readmission (11.9% vs 14.8%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-1.25; p = .360) and 30-day mortality (5.5% vs 8.6%; OR = 0.64; CI = 0.36-1.12; p = .115), and they had lower 30-day readmission costs (MACE $15,502; CI = $12,242-$19,631; comparison = $18,335; CI = $14,641-$22,962; p = .316) than those who did not receive MACE after adjusting for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION: Our MACE consultation model for older veterans with geriatric syndromes leverages the limited supply of clinicians with expertise in geriatrics. Although not statistically significant in this study of 793 subjects, MACE patients had lower odds of 30-day readmission and mortality, and lower readmission costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:818-824, 2019.

Association Between Antithrombotic Medication Use After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement and Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration System.

Importance: The recommendations about antithrombotic medication use after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) vary. Objectives: To describe the post-bAVR antithrombotic medication practice across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and to assess the association between antithrombotic strategies and post-bAVR outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study. Multivariable modeling with propensity scores was conducted to adjust for differences in patient characteristics across the 3 most common antithrombotic medication strategies (aspirin plus warfarin sodium, aspirin only, and dual antiplatelets). Text mining of notes was used to identify the patients with bAVR (fiscal years 2005-2015). Main Outcomes and Measures: This study used VHA and non-VHA outpatient pharmacy data and text notes to classify the following antithrombotic medications prescribed within 1 week after discharge from the bAVR hospitalization: aspirin plus warfarin, aspirin only, dual antiplatelets, no antithrombotics, other only, and warfarin only. The 90-day outcomes included all-cause mortality, thromboembolism risk, and bleeding events. Outcomes were identified using primary diagnosis codes from emergency department visits or hospital admissions. Results: The cohort included 9060 veterans with bAVR at 47 facilities (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [8.8] years; 98.6% male). The number of bAVR procedures per year increased from 610 in fiscal year 2005 to 1072 in fiscal year 2015. The most commonly prescribed antithrombotic strategy was aspirin only (4240 [46.8%]), followed by aspirin plus warfarin (1638 [18.1%]), no antithrombotics (1451 [16.0%]), dual antiplatelets (1010 [11.1%]), warfarin only (439 [4.8%]), and other only (282 [3.1%]). Facility variation in antithrombotic prescription patterns was observed. During the 90-day post-bAVR period, adverse events were uncommon, including all-cause mortality in 127 (1.4%), thromboembolism risk in 142 (1.6%), and bleeding events in 149 (1.6%). No differences in 90-day mortality or thromboembolism were identified across the 3 antithrombotic medication groups in either the unadjusted or adjusted models. Patients receiving the combination of aspirin plus warfarin had higher odds of bleeding than patients receiving aspirin only in the unadjusted analysis (odds ratio, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.71-3.89) and after full risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.17-3.14). Conclusions and Relevance: These data demonstrate that bAVR procedures are increasingly being performed in VHA facilities and that aspirin only was the most commonly used antithrombotic medication strategy after bAVR. The risk-adjusted results suggest that the combination of aspirin plus warfarin does not improve either all-cause mortality or thromboembolism risk but increases the risk of bleeding events compared with aspirin only.

The Relationship Between Race, Patient Activation, and Working Alliance: Implications for Patient Engagement in Mental Health Care.

This study explored the relationship between race and two key aspects of patient engagement-patient activation and working alliance-among a sample of African-American and White veterans (N = 152) seeking medication management for mental health conditions. After adjusting for demographics, race was significantly associated with patient activation, working alliance, and medication adherence scores. Patient activation was also associated with working alliance. These results provide support for the consideration of race and ethnicity in facilitating patient engagement and patient activation in mental healthcare. Minority patients may benefit from targeted efforts to improve their active engagement in mental healthcare.

Barriers to guideline-concordant opioid management in primary care--a qualitative study.

UNLABELLED: Prior studies have demonstrated poor physician adherence to opioid management guidelines in primary care. The objectives of this qualitative study were to understand physicians' and patients' perspectives on recommended opioid management practices and to identify potential barriers to and facilitators of guideline-concordant opioid management in primary care. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 14 primary care physicians and 26 of their patients receiving long-term opioid therapy. Data were analyzed using a qualitative immersion/crystallization approach. We identified 3 major barriers to and 1 facilitator of use of recommended opioid management practices. Major barriers were inadequate time and resources available; relying on general impressions of risk for opioid misuse; and viewing opioid monitoring as a "law enforcement" activity. The third barrier was most apparent for physicians in the context of drug testing and for patients in the context of opioid agreements. Beliefs about the need to protect patients from opioid-related harm emerged as a major facilitator, especially among patients. We hypothesize that future interventions to improve opioid management in primary care will be more effective if they address identified barriers and use a patient-centered framework, in which prevention of opioid-related harm to patients is emphasized as the primary goal. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes primary care perspectives on guideline-recommended opioid management practices. Barriers identified in this study may contribute to underuse of recommended opioid management practices. Consideration of barriers and facilitators to guideline-concordant care could improve effectiveness of future interventions aimed at improving opioid management in primary care.

Contrasting tensions between patients and PCPs in chronic pain management: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: With greater scrutiny on primary care providers' (PCPs) approaches to chronic pain management, more research is needed to clarify how concerns and uncertainties about opioid therapy affect the ways both patients with chronic pain and PCPs experience primary care interactions. The goal of this qualitative study was to develop a better understanding of the respective experiences, perceptions, and challenges that patients with chronic pain and PCPs face communicating with each other about pain management. DESIGN: Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to identify 14 PCPs. Patients who received ≥6 opioid prescriptions during the prior year were selected at random from the panels of participating physicians. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted individually with patients and PCPs. SETTING: VISN 11 Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana. SUBJECTS: Fourteen PCPs and 26 patients with chronic pain participated. METHODS: An inductive thematic analysis was conducted separately with patient and PCP interview data, after which the emergent themes for both groups were compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Three notable tensions between patients and PCPs were discovered: 1) the role of discussing pain versus other primary care concerns, 2) acknowledgment of pain and the search for objective evidence, and 3) recognition of patient individuality and consideration of relationship history. CONCLUSIONS: Competing demands of primary care practice, differing beliefs about pain, and uncertainties about the appropriate place of opioid therapy in chronic pain management likely contributed to the identified tensions. Several clinical communication strategies to help PCPs mitigate and manage pain-related tensions are discussed.