Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 101
Filtrar
1.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32412055

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2020 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2020 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for specialty drugs, biosimilars, and diabetes medications. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2020 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2019, overall US pharmaceutical expenditures grew 5.4% compared to 2018, for a total of $507.9 billion. This increase was driven to similar degrees by prices, utilization, and new drugs. Adalimumab was the top drug in US expenditures in 2019, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $36.9 billion (a 1.5% increase from 2018) and $90.3 billion (an 11.8% increase from 2018) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals growth was driven by new products and price increases. Several new drugs that will likely influence spending are expected to be approved in 2020. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2020 we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 9.0% to 11.0% and 2.0% to 4.0%, respectively, compared to 2019. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(5): 585-589, 2020 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32252846

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To characterize antifungal stewardship among antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) at a diverse range of hospitals and to correlate antifungal stewardship with hospital characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: ASP physician and/or pharmacist members at Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) hospitals. METHODS: An electronic survey administered August-September 2018 via the SRN to 111 hospitals. The χ2 test was used to test associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies. RESULTS: Of 111 hospitals, 45 (41%) responded; most were academic medical centers (65%) caring for stem-cell patients (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant patients (80.0%). Most hospitals have large, well-established ASPs: 60% had >5 team members and 68.9% had a duration ≥6 years. In 43 hospitals (95.6%), ASPs used antifungal stewardship strategies, most commonly prospective audit and feedback (73.3%) by a pharmacist (71.4%). Half of ASPs (51.1%) created guidelines for invasive fungal infection (IFI) management. Most hospitals (71.1%) offered rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and antifungal susceptibility testing varied. Also, 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31%) reported to the CDC National Healthcare Safety Network. ASP size, duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The use of antifungal stewardship strategies was high at SRN hospitals, but they mainly involved audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged (1) to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, (2) to promote access to laboratory tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and (3) to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with reporting to the CDC.

3.
Am J Prev Med ; 58(4): 473-486, 2020 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32033856

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Dentists prescribe 1 in 10 opioid prescriptions in the U.S. When opioids are necessary, national guidelines recommend the prescription of low-dose opioids for a short duration. This study assesses the appropriate prescribing of opioids by dentists before guideline implementation. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample of 542,958 U.S. commercial dental patient visits between 2011 and 2015 within the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases (data analysis October 2018‒April 2019). Patients with recent hospitalization, active cancer treatment, or chronic pain conditions were excluded. Prescription opioids were ascertained using pharmacy claims data with standardized morphine equivalents and recorded days' supply. Appropriate prescribing was determined from the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for pain management based on a recommended 3 days' supply of opioid medication and anticipated post-procedural pain. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of prescribed opioids exceeded the recommended morphine equivalents for appropriate management of acute pain. Approximately half (53%) exceeded the recommended days' supply. Patients aged 18-34 years, men, patients residing in the Southern U.S., and those receiving oxycodone were most likely to have opioids prescribed inappropriately. The proportion of opioids that exceed the recommended morphine equivalents increased over the study period, whereas opioids exceeding the recommended days' supply remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2 opioids prescribed to adult dental patients are overprescribed. Judicious opioid-prescribing interventions should be tailored to oral health conditions and dentists.

4.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31953121

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the proportions and trends in gender ratios of journal editorial boards in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy from 1995 to 2016. DESIGN: This was a pooled cross-sectional evaluation of 21 high-impact medical, nursing, and pharmacy journals. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The gender composition of editorial boards for each discipline was obtained. Gender expression was based on the person's name or other information available on the Internet. OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of all editorial board member positions, including editorial leadership positions, occupied by the underrepresented gender, and trends over time were measured. RESULTS: A total of 5309 editorial board members and 312 editorial leadership positions were identified. From 1995 to 2016, women remained underrepresented across medicine and pharmacy journal editorial boards, whereas men remained underrepresented across nursing journal editorial boards. However, there were statistically significant increases in the representation of the underrepresented gender on editorial boards across all disciplines. Medicine was the only discipline to experience a statistically significant increase in the underrepresented gender of the editorial board being appointed to a leadership position; the proportion of women increased from 3% in 1995 to 35% in 2016. CONCLUSION: The gender gap in medicine and pharmacy journals appears to be narrowing. Although men continue to lag behind women in nursing journals, they are and have been overrepresented when considering the proportion of men practicing in the field. Overall, continued efforts are needed to resolve gender inequities in academic health sciences.

5.
6.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(1): 52-58, 2020 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31658933

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We examined Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) prevention practices and their relationship with hospital-onset healthcare facility-associated CDI rates (CDI rates) in Veterans Affairs (VA) acute-care facilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: From January 2017 to February 2017, we conducted an electronic survey of CDI prevention practices and hospital characteristics in the VA. We linked survey data with CDI rate data for the period January 2015 to December 2016. We stratified facilities according to whether their overall CDI rate per 10,000 bed days of care was above or below the national VA mean CDI rate. We examined whether specific CDI prevention practices were associated with an increased risk of a CDI rate above the national VA mean CDI rate. RESULTS: All 126 facilities responded (100% response rate). Since implementing CDI prevention practices in July 2012, 60 of 123 facilities (49%) reported a decrease in CDI rates; 22 of 123 facilities (18%) reported an increase, and 41 of 123 (33%) reported no change. Facilities reporting an increase in the CDI rate (vs those reporting a decrease) after implementing prevention practices were 2.54 times more likely to have CDI rates that were above the national mean CDI rate. Whether a facility's CDI rates were above or below the national mean CDI rate was not associated with self-reported cleaning practices, duration of contact precautions, availability of private rooms, or certification of infection preventionists in infection prevention. CONCLUSIONS: We found considerable variation in CDI rates. We were unable to identify which particular CDI prevention practices (i.e., bundle components) were associated with lower CDI rates.

7.
Addict Behav ; 102: 106190, 2020 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31704436

RESUMEN

Research indicates that increased cumulative exposure (duration of administration and strength of dose) is associated with long-term opioid use. Because dentists represent some of the highest opioid prescribing medical professionals in the US, dental practices offer a critical site for intervention. The current study used a randomized clinical trial design to examine the efficacy of an opioid misuse prevention program (OMPP), presented as a brief intervention immediately prior to dental extraction surgery. The OMPP provided educational counseling about risks and appropriate use of opioid medication, as well as 28 tablets of ibuprofen (200 mg) and 28 tablets of acetaminophen (500 mg) for weaning off opioid medication. This was compared with a Treatment as Usual (TAU) control condition. Participants were individuals presenting for surgery who were eligible for opioid medication (N = 76). Follow up assessment was conducted at 1 week following surgery, with 4 individuals refusing follow up or not prescribed opioid. Intent to treat analysis indicated a non-significant treatment group effect (N = 72, Beta = 0.16, p = .0835), such that the OMPP group self-reported less opioid use (in morphine milligram equivalents, MMEs) than the TAU group (37.94 vs. 47.79, effect size d = 0.42). Sensitivity analysis, excluding individuals with complications following surgery (n = 6) indicated a significant treatment group effect (N = 66, Beta = 0.24, p = .0259), such that the OMPP group self-reported significantly less MMEs than the TAU group (29.74 vs. 43.59, effect size d = 0.56). Results indicate that a 10-minute intervention and provision of non-narcotic pain medications may reduce the amount of self-administered opioid medication following dental surgery.

8.
Pharmacotherapy ; 40(2): 107-115, 2020 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31867748

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of cardiac risk factors among patients prescribed azithromycin before and after the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning on May 17, 2012, on the risk of potentially fatal heart rhythms associated with the drug. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data. DATA SOURCE: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. PATIENTS: A total of 12,971,078 unique patients with 23,749,652 azithromycin prescriptions dispensed between January 2009 and June 2015 were included. Patients had to be continuously enrolled in a health plan for at least 365 days (baseline) before the date of azithromycin dispensing (index date). Cohorts were assigned based on the index dates of the azithromycin prescriptions, either before (January 1, 2009-May 1, 2012) or after (June 1, 2012-June 30, 2015) the FDA warning was issued. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A cardiac risk factor included either a cardiac condition (heart failure or dysrhythmias) or concurrent use of drugs that prolong the QT interval. The unit of analysis was each prescription of azithromycin. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the prevalence of cardiac risk factors. Mean age of the patients was 40.1 ± 21.3 years old, with 60.8% females. Prior to the FDA warning, 11,596,022 (48.8%) azithromycin prescriptions were identified, and 12,153,630 (51.2%) were identified after the warning. The prevalence of a preexisting cardiac condition was 7.3% versus 7.9% (p<0.0001) before and after the FDA warning, respectively. Concurrent use of a QT-interval-prolonging drug was 23.3% versus 24.2% (p<0.0001) before and after the FDA warning, respectively. After controlling for confounders, the odds of having a cardiac risk factor after the FDA warning were significantly lower (odds ratio 0.938, 95% CI 0.936-0.940) compared with before the FDA warning. CONCLUSION: Despite the 2012 FDA warning, a nontrivial number of azithromycin prescriptions was prescribed concurrently in patients with preexisting a cardiac condition (1 of 12 azithromycin prescriptions) and in those using a QT-interval-prolonging drug (1 of 5 azithromycin prescriptions). After adjusting for confounders, the odds of cardiac risk factors being present in patients prescribed azithromycin were modestly lower after the warning; however, the prevalence remained essentially unchanged before and after the FDA warning was issued.

9.
Spinal Cord ; 2019 Dec 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31827257

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of multidrug resistant gram-negative organisms (MDRGNOs) on outcomes in those with SCI/D. SETTING: VA SCI System of Care, Department of Veterans Affairs, United States. METHODS: Multidrug resistance (MDR) was defined as being non-susceptible to ≥1 antibiotic in ≥3 antibiotic classes. Multivariable cluster-adjusted regression models were fit to assess the association of MDRGNOs with 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission, and postculture length of stay (LOS) stratified by case setting patients. Only the first culture per patient during the study period was included. RESULTS: A total of 8,681 individuals with SCI/D had a culture with gram-negative bacteria during the study period, of which 33.0% had a MDRGNO. Overall, 954 (10.9%) died within 1 year of culture date. Poisson regression showed that MDR was associated with 1-year mortality among outpatients (IRR: 1.28, 95% CI, 1.06-1.54) and long-term care patients (OR: 2.06, 95% CI, 1.28-3.31). MDR significantly impacted postculture LOS in inpatients, as evidenced by a 10% longer LOS in MDR vs. non-MDR (IRR: 1.10, 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). MDR was not associated with increased 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: MDRGNOs are prevalent in SCI/D and MDR may result in poor outcomes. Further attention to prevention of infections, antibiotic stewardship, and management are warranted in this population.

10.
J Am Dent Assoc ; 150(11): 906-921.e12, 2019 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31668170

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.


Asunto(s)
American Dental Association , Absceso Periapical , Adulto , Antibacterianos , Odontología Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Odontalgia
11.
J Am Dent Assoc ; 150(12): e179-e216, 2019 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31761029

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use. TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Periodontitis Periapical , Pulpitis , Absceso , Adulto , American Dental Association , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estados Unidos
12.
J Am Dent Assoc ; 150(10): 846-853.e5, 2019 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31561761

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions (Rxs) is a major quality improvement initiative in the United States. Tracking antibiotic prescribing trends is 1 method of assessing improvement in antibiotic prescribing. The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal antibiotic prescribing practices among dental specialists. METHODS: This was a retrospective ecological longitudinal trend study. The authors calculated monthly systemic antibiotic Rx counts, and rates per 100,000 beneficiaries, from a pharmacy benefits manager in the United States from 2013 through 2015. The authors calculated average annual antibiotic Rx rates (AARs) for the 3-year study period. The authors used a quasi-Poisson regression model to analyze antibiotic Rx trends. The authors quantified seasonal trends, when present, via peak-to-trough ratios (PTTRs). RESULTS: Dental specialists prescribed 2.4 million antibiotics to the cohort of 38 million insurance beneficiaries during the 3-year study period (AAR = 2,086 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Oral and maxillofacial surgeons prescribed the most antibiotics (1,172,104 Rxs; AAR = 1,018 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), followed by periodontists (527,038 Rxs; AAR = 457 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), and endodontists (447,362 Rxs; AAR = 388 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Longitudinal antibiotic prescribing trends were stable among all dental specialties in the regression models (P > .05). The authors observed substantial seasonal variation in antibiotic Rxs in 2 specialties: pediatric dentistry (PTTR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.25) and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (PTTR, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.71), with the highest rates of antibiotic Rxs in the spring and winter. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing practices for dental specialists remained stable. The authors observed seasonal trends in 2 specialties. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Public health efforts are needed improve antibiotic prescribing among dental specialties.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Especialización , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Prescripción Inadecuada , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
13.
J Am Dent Assoc ; 150(10): 883-889, 2019 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31561762

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In 2017, 11.4 million US citizens misused prescription opioids, resulting in 46 overdose deaths daily and a $78.5 billion burden on the economy. Dentists are one of the most frequent prescribers of opioids, and there is concern that dental prescribing is contributing to the opioid crisis. METHODS: A 2019 study showed 22.3% of US dental prescriptions were for opioids compared with 0.6% of dental prescriptions in England where nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen accounted for most analgesic prescriptions. This observation prompted a review of international analgesic prescribing habits and of the advantages and disadvantages of opioids and NSAIDs for treating dental pain. RESULTS: US opioid prescribing far exceeded that in other countries where NSAIDs accounted for most dental analgesic prescribing. Furthermore, results from reviews published respectively in 2018 and 2016 help confirm that NSAIDs and NSAID-acetaminophen combinations are as effective as or more effective than opioids for controlling dental pain and cause significantly fewer adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the potential for misuse and evidence that NSAIDs are as effective as opioids and have fewer adverse effects, there is clear patient benefit in avoiding opioids for the prevention or management of dental pain. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A growing preponderance of evidence shows that opioids are not needed for routine oral health care. This article provides an overview of the evidence and outlines possible pain management models to minimize opioid use in dentistry. The purpose is to stimulate debate about this important topic and encourage the development of definitive guidance by professional bodies, health care providers, and state and federal agencies.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos , Odontología , Inglaterra , Humanos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina
14.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 76(15): 1105-1121, 2019 Jul 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31199861

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Historical trends and factors likely to influence future pharmaceutical expenditures are discussed, and projections are made for drug spending in 2019 in nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors). METHODS: Drug expenditure data through calendar year 2018 were obtained from the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database and analyzed. New drug approvals, patent expirations, and other factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2019 were also reviewed. Expenditure projections for 2019 for nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors) were made through a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: U.S. prescription sales in calendar year 2018 totaled $476.2 billion, a 5.5% increase from 2017 spending. The top 3 drugs by expenditures were adalimumab ($19.1 billion), insulin glargine ($9.3 billion), and etanercept ($8.0 billion). Prescription expenditures in nonfederal hospitals totaled $35.8 billion, a 4.8% increase from 2017. Expenditures in clinics in 2018 increased by 13.0% to $80.5 billion. The increase in spending in nonfederal hospitals was largely driven by new products and increased utilization of existing products. The list of the top 25 drugs by expenditures in nonfederal hospitals and clinics was dominated by specialty drugs. CONCLUSION: We predict continued moderate growth of 4-6% in overall drug expenditures (across the entire U.S. market). We expect the clinic sector to continue to experience high (11-13%) growth in drug spending in 2019. Finally, for nonfederal hospitals we anticipate growth in the range of 3-5%. These estimates are at the national level. Health-system pharmacy leaders should carefully examine local drug utilization patterns to determine their own organization's anticipated spending in 2019.


Asunto(s)
Costos de los Medicamentos/tendencias , Gastos en Salud/tendencias , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/economía , Bases de Datos Factuales/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos de los Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Utilización de Medicamentos/economía , Utilización de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Utilización de Medicamentos/tendencias , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Estados Unidos
15.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(5): e193909, 2019 05 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31150071

RESUMEN

Importance: Antibiotics are recommended before certain dental procedures in patients with select comorbidities to prevent serious distant site infections. Objective: To assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures using Truven, a national integrated health claims database. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study. Dental visits from 2011 to 2015 were linked to medical and prescription claims from 2009 to 2015. The dates of analysis were August 2018 to January 2019. Participants were US patients with commercial dental insurance without a hospitalization or extraoral infection 14 days before antibiotic prophylaxis (defined as a prescription with ≤2 days' supply dispensed within 7 days before a dental visit). Exposures: Presence or absence of cardiac diagnoses and dental procedures that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a prescription dispensed before a dental visit with a procedure that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex in patients with an appropriate cardiac diagnosis. To assess associations between patient or dental visit characteristics and appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, multivariable logistic regression was used. A priori hypothesis tests were performed with an α level of .05. Results: From 2011 to 2015, antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed for 168 420 dental visits for 91 438 patients (median age, 63 years; interquartile range, 55-72 years; 57.2% female). Overall, these 168 420 dental visits were associated with 287 029 dental procedure codes (range, 1-14 per visit). Most dental visits were classified as diagnostic (70.2%) and/or preventive (58.8%). In 90.7% of dental visits, a procedure was performed that would necessitate antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk cardiac patients. Prevalent comorbidities include prosthetic joint devices (42.5%) and cardiac conditions at the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis (20.9%). Per guidelines, 80.9% of antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions before dental visits were unnecessary. Clindamycin was more likely to be unnecessary relative to amoxicillin (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15). Prosthetic joint devices (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.22-2.41), tooth implant procedures (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.89), female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.25), and visits occurring in the western United States (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25) were associated with unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis. Conclusion and Relevance: More than 80% of antibiotics prescribed for infection prophylaxis before dental visits were unnecessary. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship in dental practices is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing for infection prophylaxis.

16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(5): e194303, 2019 05 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31125102

RESUMEN

Importance: The United States consumes most of the opioids worldwide despite representing a small portion of the world's population. Dentists are one of the most frequent US prescribers of opioids despite data suggesting that nonopioid analgesics are similarly effective for oral pain. While oral health and dentist use are generally similar between the United States and England, it is unclear how opioid prescribing by dentists varies between the 2 countries. Objective: To compare opioid prescribing by dentists in the United States and England. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of prescriptions for opioids dispensed from outpatient pharmacies and health care settings between January 1 and December 31, 2016, by dentists in the United States and England. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to January 2019. Exposures: Opioids prescribed by dentists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion and prescribing rates of opioid prescriptions. Results: In 2016, the proportion of prescriptions written by US dentists that were for opioids was 37 times greater than the proportion written by English dentists. In all, 22.3% of US dental prescriptions were opioids (11.4 million prescriptions) compared with 0.6% of English dental prescriptions (28 082 prescriptions) (difference, 21.7%; 95% CI, 13.8%-32.1%; P < .001). Dentists in the United States also had a higher number of opioid prescriptions per 1000 population (35.4 per 1000 US population [95% CI, 25.2-48.7 per 1000 population] vs 0.5 per 1000 England population [95% CI, 0.03-3.7 per 1000 population]) and number of opioid prescriptions per dentist (58.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 44.9-75.0 prescriptions per dentist] vs 1.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 0.2-5.6 prescriptions per dentist]). While the codeine derivative dihydrocodeine was the sole opioid prescribed by English dentists, US dentists prescribed a range of opioids containing hydrocodone (62.3%), codeine (23.2%), oxycodone (9.1%), and tramadol (4.8%). Dentists in the United States also prescribed long-acting opioids (0.06% of opioids prescribed by US dentists [6425 prescriptions]). Long-acting opioids were not prescribed by English dentists. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that in 2016, dentists in the United States prescribed opioids with significantly greater frequency than their English counterparts. Opioids with a high potential for abuse, such as oxycodone, were frequently prescribed by US dentists but not prescribed in England. These results illustrate how 1 source of opioids differs substantially in the United States vs England. To reduce dental opioid prescribing in the United States, dentists could adopt measures similar to those used in England, including national guidelines for treating dental pain that emphasize prescribing opioids conservatively.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Pautas de la Práctica en Odontología/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Transversales , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
17.
Healthc (Amst) ; 7(4)2019 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31031120

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is systemic undercoding of medical comorbidities within administrative claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This leads to bias when applying claims-based risk adjustment indices to compare outcomes between VA and non-VA settings. Our objective was to compare the accuracy of a medication-based risk adjustment index (RxRisk-VM) to diagnostic claims-based indices for predicting mortality. METHODS: We modified the RxRisk-V index (RxRisk-VM) by incorporating VA and Medicare pharmacy and durable medical equipment claims in Veterans dually-enrolled in VA and Medicare in 2012. Using the concordance (C) statistic, we compared its accuracy in predicting 1 and 3-year all-cause mortality to the following models: demographics only, demographics plus prescription count, or demographics plus a diagnostic claims-based risk index (e.g., Charlson, Elixhauser, or Gagne). We also compared models containing demographics, RxRisk-VM, and a claims-based index. RESULTS: In our cohort of 271,184 dually-enrolled Veterans (mean age = 70.5 years, 96.1% male, 81.7% non-Hispanic white), RxRisk-VM (C = 0.773) exhibited greater accuracy in predicting 1-year mortality than demographics only (C = 0.716) or prescription counts (C = 0.744), but was less accurate than the Charlson (C = 0.794), Elixhauser (C = 0.80), or Gagne (C = 0.810) indices (all P < 0.001). Combining RxRisk-VM with claims-based indices enhanced its accuracy over each index alone (all models C ≥ 0.81). Relative model performance was similar for 3-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The RxRisk-VM index exhibited a high level of, but slightly less, accuracy in predicting mortality in comparison to claims-based risk indices. IMPLICATIONS: Its application may enhance the accuracy of studies examining VA and non-VA care and enable risk adjustment when diagnostic claims are not available or biased. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

18.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 6(3): ofz067, 2019 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30895206

RESUMEN

Background: Most antibiotic use in the United States occurs in the outpatient setting, and 10% of these prescriptions are generated by dentists. The development of comprehensive antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) in the dental setting is nascent, and therefore we describe the implementation of a dental ASP. Methods: A collaborative team of dentist, pharmacist, and physician leaders conducted a baseline needs assessment and literature evaluation to identify opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing by dentists within Illinois' largest oral health care provider for Medicaid recipients. A multimodal intervention was implemented that included patient and provider education, clinical guideline development, and an assessment of the antibiotic prescribing rate per urgent care visit before and after the educational interventions. Results: We identified multiple needs, including standardization of antibiotic prescribing practices for patients with acute oral infections in the urgent care clinics. A 72.9% decrease in antibiotic prescribing was observed in urgent care visits after implementation of our multimodal intervention (preintervention urgent care prescribing rate, 8.5% [24/283]; postintervention, 2.3% [8/352]; P < .001). Conclusions: We report the successful implementation of a dental ASP that is concordant with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship in the Outpatient Setting. Our approach may be adapted to other dental practices to improve antibiotic prescribing.

19.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 40(4): 463-466, 2019 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30829187

RESUMEN

Laboratory identification of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) is a key step in controlling its spread. Our survey showed that most Veterans Affairs laboratories follow VA guidelines for initial CRE identification, whereas 55.0% use PCR to confirm carbapenemase production. Most respondents were knowledgeable about CRE guidelines. Barriers included staffing, training, and financial resources.

20.
Am J Infect Control ; 47(2): 175-179, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30301655

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) have a high risk for multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Accurate and easily applied definitions are critical to identify CRE. This study describes CRE and associated characteristics in veterans with SCI per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) definitions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of veterans with SCI and more than 1 culture with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp and/or Enterobacter spp between 2012 and 2013 was examined. Antibiotic susceptibility criteria of pre-2015 (CDC1) and post-2015 (CDC2) CDC definitions and pre-2017 (VA1) and post-2017 (VA2) VA definitions were used to identify CRE. CRE prevalence and characteristics are described for isolates meeting each definition, and agreement was assessed with the Cohen kappa. RESULTS: We reviewed 21,514 isolates cultured from 6,974 veterans; 423 isolates met any CRE definition. Although agreement among definitions was high (kappa = 0.82-0.93), definitions including ertapenem resistance led to higher CRE prevalence (VA1 = 1.7% and CDC2 = 1.9% vs VA2 = 1.4% and CDC1 = 1.5%). Forty-four of 142 VA facilities had more than 1 CRE case defined by VA2; 10 facilities accounted for 60% of CRE cases. Almost all CRE was isolated from high-complexity, urban facilities, and the South had the highest proportion of CRE. CONCLUSIONS: Varying federal definitions give different CRE frequencies in a high-risk population. Definitions including ertapenem resistance resulted in higher CRE prevalence but may overemphasize noncarbapenemase isolates. Thus, both federal definitions now highlight the importance of carbapenemase testing.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA