Effect of collaborative dementia care on potentially inappropriate medication use: Outcomes from the Care Ecosystem randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) cause adverse events and death. We evaluate the Care Ecosystem (CE) collaborative dementia care program on medication use among community-dwelling persons living with dementia (PLWD). METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing CE to usual care (UC) on changes in PIMs, over 12 months between March 2015 and May 2020. Secondary outcomes included change in number of medications, clinically relevant PIMs, and anti-dementia medications. RESULTS: Of 804 PLWD, N = 490 had complete medication data. The CE resulted in significantly fewer PIMs compared to UC (-0.35; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.20; P < 0.0001). Number needed to prevent an increase in 1 PIM was 3. Total medications, PIMs for dementia or cognitive impairment, CNS-active PIMs, anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, and opioids were also fewer. Anti-dementia medication regimens were modified more frequently. CONCLUSION: The CE medication review intervention embedded in collaborative dementia care optimized medication use among PLWD. HIGHLIGHTS: Compared to usual care (UC), the Care Ecosystem (CE) medication review intervention prevented increases in potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Use of anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, and opioids were significantly reduced, with a trend for antipsychotics. Anti-dementia medications were adjusted more frequently. The CE medication review intervention embedded in collaborative dementia care optimized medication use.

The Evolution of Drug Information Services to Asynchronous Delivery of Pharmacist eConsults.

Drug information (DI) services provided an avenue to expand the role of pharmacists as the medication experts. The focus of DI has shifted from general questions submitted to DI centers to patient-specific questions that optimize care. One method to increase access to pharmacist expertise is through pharmacy eConsults. Pharmacy eConsults provide specialist care for medically complex patients using a patient-centered, asynchronous approach. The purpose of this article is to describe the evolution of consults from formal drug information services and describe one academic medical center's implementation of a pharmacy eConsult service to provide patient-specific DI.

Physician and Nurse Practitioner Attitudes on Generic Prescribing of Oral Contraceptive Pills and Antidepressants.

IMPORTANCE: As prescription drug costs rise, it is important to understand attitudes among primary care physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) towards generic drugs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the generic skepticism index (GSI) among primary care clinicians, and their willingness to discuss and prescribe generic antidepressants (ADs) and generic oral contraceptives (OCPs). DESIGN: We used a factorial vignette design survey to test 4 factors: message source, message, brand preference, and drug class. Participants were randomized to different combinations of factors. SETTING: This was a cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians registered with the American College of Physicians (ACP) and NPs registered with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were generic skepticism as measured using the generic skepticism index (GSI), and clinician willingness to discuss and prescribe generics. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 56% of physicians (n = 369/661) and 60% of NPs (n = 493/819). Compared with physicians, NPs were younger (p < 0.001), predominantly female (p < 0.001), and differed in the race (p < 0.001). According to the GSI, 16% (n = 138/862) were identified as generic skeptics (18.5% of NPs and 12.7% of physicians, p = 0.023). Generic skeptics had lower odds of willingness to discuss switching (OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.14-0.35), p < 0.001) or prescribe (OR 0.18, 95% CI (0.11-0.28), p < 0.001) generic OCPs. Participants had lower odds of willingness to prescribe generic drugs to patients with brand preference compared with brand-neutral patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Generic skepticism was associated with lower willingness to discuss or prescribe generic drugs. Clinicians reported lower willingness to discuss switching or prescribe generics for OCPs than for ADs. Patient brand preference hindered generic prescribing. Message source and message type were not significantly associated with outcomes.

Development and testing of a module to promote generic oral contraceptive prescribing among nurse practitioners.

Although generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce health care expenditures, use of generic OCPs remains low, and the factors that affect generic prescribing are not well understood. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing and potential solutions to increase generic OCP prescribing, as well as pilot an educational module to address clinician misconceptions about generic OCPs. We developed focus group scripts using the 4D model of appreciative inquiry. A total of four focus groups occurred, two at the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) national conference and two at the American College of Physicians (ACP) Internal Medicine meeting. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method with no a priori hypothesis to generate emerging and reoccurring themes. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop an educational module promoting generic OCP prescribing. Participants were recruited from the AANP Network for Research and the ACP Research Panel. This study demonstrates that health system factors, workflow factors, clinician factors, and patient factors were the main barriers to and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing. Nurse practitioners were responsive to an educational module and reported increased willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs after completing the module. Interventions to increase generic OCP prescribing must address clinician and patient factors within the context of workflow and larger health system factors.

Development and testing of a web module to IMPROVE generic prescribing of oral contraceptives among primary care physicians.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The use of generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce healthcare costs, yet scepticism of generic drugs remains a barrier to generic OCP discussion and prescription. An educational web module was developed to reduce generic scepticism related to OCPs, improve knowledge of generic drugs and increase physician willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs. METHODS: A needs assessment was completed using in-person focus groups at American College of Physicians (ACP) Annual Meeting and a survey targeting baseline generic scepticism. Insights gained were used to build an educational web module detailing barriers and benefits of generic OCP prescription. The module was disseminated via email to an ACP research panel who completed our baseline survey. Post-module evaluation measured learner reaction, knowledge and intention to change behaviour along with generic scepticism. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The module had a response rate of 56% (n = 208/369). Individuals defined as generic sceptics at baseline were significantly less likely to complete our module compared to non-sceptics (responders 9.6% vs non-responders 16.8%, P = 0.04). The majority (85%, n = 17/20) of baseline sceptics were converted to non-sceptics (P < 0.01) following completion of the module. Compared to non-sceptics, post-module generic sceptics reported less willingness to discuss (sceptic 33.3% vs non-sceptic 71.5%, P < 0.01), but not less willingness to prescribe generic OCPs (sceptic 53.3% vs non-sceptic 67.9%, P = 0.25). Non-white physicians and international medical graduates (IMG) were more likely to be generic sceptics at baseline (non-white 86.9% vs white 69.9%, P = 0.01, IMG 13.0% vs USMG 5.0% vs unknown 18.2%, P = 0.03) but were also more likely to report intention to prescribe generic OCPs as a result of the module (non-white 78.7% vs white 57.3%, P < 0.01, IMG 76.1% vs USMG 50.3% vs unknown 77.3%, P = 0.03). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: A brief educational web module can be used to promote prescribing of generic OCPs and reduce generic scepticism.

Bevacizumab for neovascular ocular diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of off-label use of bevacizumab for neovascular ocular diseases. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed (1966-January 2007) search was conducted using the terms human, intravitreal, bevacizumab, macular, and retinopathy. Meeting abstracts from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, Retina Society, Macula Society, and Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Controlled studies, unpublished reports involving 100 or more subjects, and published reports describing 5 or more subjects were reviewed. Only English-language articles were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intravitreal bevacizumab has been evaluated in 133 patients in unpublished controlled studies. Over 3500 patients have been evaluated in open-label studies with duration of follow-up ranging from 3 months to 1 year. The most common use was neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Other conditions studied included diabetic retinopathy, pathological myopia, neovascular glaucoma, and macular edema due to diabetes, retinal vein occlusion, or uveitis. Statistically significant improvements in visual acuity, as well as decreases in retinal thickness and the extent of choroidal neovascularization, were noted. Intravitreal bevacizumab was well tolerated over the short term. In a registry compiling adverse experiences of 7113 intravitreal injections, rates of adverse events were less than or equal to 0.21%. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled studies support a benefit of intravitreal bevacizumab in neovascular AMD for 3 months to 1 year. Low cost is a significant advantage of bevacizumab. Patients should discuss the potential risks and benefits of intravitreal bevacizumab and other available therapies with their physicians before receiving treatment. Controlled trials are needed to characterize the safety and efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab and determine the optimal treatment regimen.

Intrathecal ziconotide for refractory chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of ziconotide for treatment of severe chronic pain in patients who are candidates for intrathecal therapy. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed/MEDLINE search (1966-June 2006) was conducted using the terms ziconotide, Prialt, and SNX-111. Manufacturer-provided data, the Food and Drug Administration medical review of ziconotide, and abstracts presented at American Pain Society meetings (2001-2006) were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Human studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ziconotide for the treatment of chronic pain were considered. Animal data were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ziconotide is the first and only neuronal-type (N-type) calcium-channel blocker. Ziconotide must be administered intrathecally via continuous infusion. A programmable implanted variable-rate microinfusion device, or an external microinfusion device and catheter must be utilized. In double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, ziconotide significantly improved patient perception of pain from baseline to the end of the study periods, which ranged from 11 to 21 days. Patients enrolled in clinical trials were intolerant of or refractory to other treatment modalities. There have been no studies that directly compared ziconotide with other intrathecal or systemic analgesics. Key ziconotide-related adverse events are neuropsychiatric, including depression, cognitive impairment, and hallucinations; depressed levels of consciousness; and elevation of creatine kinase levels. Ziconotide is also associated with a risk of meningitis due to possible contamination of the microinfusion device. CONCLUSIONS: Ziconotide is a therapeutic option for treatment of severe chronic pain in patients who have exhausted all other agents, including intrathecal morphine, and for whom the potential benefit outweighs the risks of serious neuropsychiatric adverse effects and of having an implanted device. Further studies are needed to determine the comparative efficacy of ziconotide and other pain therapies.