Antipsychotic Medication Use in Nursing Homes: Approaches to Reduce Use and National Trends.

Consensus exists regarding the need to reduce antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes, multiple initiatives have been implemented with the intent to achieve this goal, and progress is being made. While limited high quality research is available documenting the impact of various approaches, resource tool kits and best practice descriptions can help guide efforts.

Partnership to decrease antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes: impact at the state level.

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) established a partnership among stakeholders to decrease the percentage of residents in nursing homes receiving an antipsychotic agent by 15 percent. This goal emanated from concerns including the large percentage of residents taking antipsychotic agents, the questionable use of antipsychotics (e.g., off-label use), the high cost of inappropriate antipsychotic use, and toxicity in patients with dementia (e.g., black box warning regarding mortality). The successful achievement of this goal is evaluated via quality measures, which are greatly influenced by changes in exclusion of residents from the population examined. The partnership is focused on optimizing use of antipsychotic agents by training clinicians on nonpharmacologic approaches, educating on the dangers of antipsychotic medication use and sharing data on antipsychotic medications. In South Dakota, these efforts have yielded a 12 percent relative reduction (21.3 percent to 18.7 percent) in the percent of residents prescribed antipsychotic agents from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013. Future efforts in South Dakota include a Nursing Home Quality Care Collaborative that involves the majority of facilities across the state learning from peers and national experts. The South Dakota Dementia Coalition includes 17 stakeholders who guide education activities and communicate these opportunities to their constituents.

Advancing the use of community pharmacy quality measures: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe consumers' ability to interpret pharmacy quality measures data presented in a report card, to examine the tools that consumers require to interpret the information available in a pharmacy quality report card, and to determine whether pharmacy quality measures influence consumers' choice of a pharmacy. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Three semistructured focus groups conducted in a private meeting space at a public library in Sioux Falls, SD, from April 2011 to May 2011. PARTICIPANTS: 29 laypeople. INTERVENTION: Participants' skills interpreting and using pharmacy quality information were examined based on mock report cards containing the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) quality measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consumer perceptions of pharmacy quality data. RESULTS: Participants reported difficulty understanding quality measures because of knowledge deficits. They wanted supportive resources on drug class of their medications to help them understand the measures. Participants had different opinions on whether their pharmacies should be compared with other pharmacies based on specific quality measures. For example, they favored the use of drug-drug interactions as a quality measure for comparing pharmacies, while medication adherence was deemed of limited use for comparison. Participants stated that pharmacy report cards would be useful information but would not prompt a change in pharmacy. However, participants perceived that this information would be useful in selecting a new pharmacy. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that consumers require simplification of PQA quality measures and supportive resources to interpret the measures. Consumers may favor certain quality measures based on their perception of the role of the pharmacist. Education is required before full use of this quality-of-care information can be realized.

Managing depression for residents in nursing facilities.

OBJECTIVE: Review the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Interpretive Guidelines from the State Operations Manual (SOM) in light of evidence for management of depression found in the literature. DATA SOURCES: Articles indexed in PubMed for the last 20 years, American Psychiatric Association Guidelines, CMS Interpretive Guidelines from the SOM, and The American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) Guidelines. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Forty published papers were reviewed, and criteria supporting the primary objective were used to identify useful resources. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature included guidelines regarding the management of late-life depression (e.g., dosage and duration of therapy). This literature was examined in relation to the current CMS Interpretive Guidelines, which are provided to state surveyors to help them evaluate whether a nursing facility is in compliance with federal regulations. These guidelines provide explanation and clarification of the actual regulations and so are used during evaluation of the facility. CONCLUSION: Current recommendations indicate that a first episode of depression should be treated for 12 months beyond full remission, according to AMDA guidelines. Longer treatment durations (maintenance phase) are needed depending on the resident's situation (e.g., severity or number of episodes). In addition, evidence suggests that antidepressants should remain at the same dose through the maintenance phase of treatment. The Interpretive Guidelines require a dosage reduction to the lowest effective dose by decreasing the dose two times in the first year unless "clinically contraindicated to discontinuation" is documented. This correlates to a dosage reduction within the first nine months of antidepressant treatment. This necessitates that in the majority of depressive episodes, clinicians document their rationale for continuing treatment. Clinicians must commit to this process, and surveyors must acknowledge this appropriate approach to depression management.

Medication use patterns in elderly South Dakota Medicare patients.

Optimizing medication use through the evaluation of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) has been the focus of a great deal of research. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has created its own definition of PIMs from a variety of existing criteria and has contracted with each state's Quality Improvement Organization (South Dakota Foundation for Medical Care in South Dakota) to work on reducing PIM rates. In South Dakota, 16.4 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who filled a prescription (April 1, 2008, through September 30, 2008) received a PIM. Of the patients receiving PIMs, 13.6 percent received PIMs from two or more categories, and 88.3 percent filled a prescription for at least one of the five most common PIM categories. These five PIM categories were propoxyphene, skeletal muscle relaxants (select agents), nitrofurantoin, oral estrogens and antihistamines (select agents). While there may be rare occasions when these agents are justified, safer or more effective alternatives exist.

Propoxyphene and pain management in the elderly.

Pain is frequently reported and often undertreated in the elderly population. In light of these concerns, it is important to examine potentially ineffective or problematic pain medications. Propoxyphene is one such agent whose efficacy and safety have been questioned by researchers, clinicians and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Specifically, multiple studies have found propoxyphene to be no more effective than acetaminophen (APAP), yet propoxyphene causes opioid side effects and has been involved in many drug-related deaths. In addition, propoxyphene/APAP products are often prescribed at doses that exceed maximum values (49.2 percent of APAP/propoxyphene napsylate 100 prescriptions for South Dakota Medicaid patients exceeded the maximum daily dose). The relevance of propoxyphene use is seen by the 7.1 percent prevalence of propoxyphene prescriptions among the South Dakota Medicare beneficiaries, which is comparable to the 6.8 percent reported in the U.S. community-based Medicare population. Therefore, it is very important to consider alternatives to propoxyphene such as APAP, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (rare use due to adverse effects) and other opioids, when managing elderly patients with pain.

Geriatric primer: implications and management of decline for the elderly patient.

Decline among older adults has the potential to produce dramatic changes in the elderly person's life, having an influence on the place of residence, self-sufficiency, and quality of life. Although the prevalence of decline among the elderly had decreased, the relevance of this topic will continue to grow with the expansion of the elderly population. It is important to understand the terminology used to describe decline, how it is measured, its ramifications, associated risk factors, and potential causes in order to participate in preventing and managing decline. Pharmacists should also be aware of the relationship of medications to decline including the management of causative conditions and medication-use patterns that are associated with decline. Finally, pharmacists must be prepared to help elderly patients who are having difficulties administering medications as a result of decline.

Timing of blood pressure measurement related to caffeine consumption.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients should wait 30 minutes after caffeine consumption to have their blood pressure measured. DATA SOURCES: Literature was obtained by searching MEDLINE (1980-September 2007), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1980-September 2007), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1994-September 2007). Search terms included caffeine and blood pressure. Literature was also obtained from citations in relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles that examined caffeine's acute effect on blood pressure were reviewed, with additional focus on caffeine tolerance and hypertensive status. DATA SYNTHESIS: Caffeine appears to affect blood pressure through adenosine receptor inhibition and an increased release of select neurotransmitters. Caffeine levels peak 30-120 minutes after oral intake and caffeine's half-life is 3-6 hours. The effect of caffeine on blood pressure has been examined for decades, with variable results depending on factors such as population examined (eg, hypertensive status, physical stressors, age) and study design (eg, acute effects, chronic ingestion, retrospective epidemiologic review). Caffeine tolerance diminishes the acute effect of caffeine on blood pressure, and hypertensive individuals are more susceptible to blood pressure changes. Reviews of caffeine's acute effect on blood pressure indicate changes of 3-15 mm Hg systolic and 4-13 mm Hg diastolic. Typically, blood pressure changes occur within 30 minutes, peak in 1-2 hours, and may persist for more than 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Having a patient abstain from caffeine for 30 minutes prior to blood pressure monitoring is not adequate to avoid caffeine's potential effects. An alternative approach to blood pressure monitoring would be to ask the patient about recent caffeine consumption and interpret the blood pressure reading based on this information. In addition, healthcare practitioners should provide education regarding caffeine's effects.

Interaction between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of an interaction between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) producing an increased risk for gastrointestinal adverse outcomes such as bleeding. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for English-language literature published between 1966 and August 2005. All studies examining gastrointestinal adverse effects from an SSRI-NSAID combination were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four retrospective studies examined gastrointestinal adverse outcomes from the combination of SSRIs and NSAIDs. The risk ratio for an upper gastrointestinal bleed from this drug combination (compared with not receiving either agent) ranged from 3.3-15.6, and the risk ratio for gastrointestinal adverse effects was 12.4. Two studies found that the risk for an upper gastrointestinal bleed from the drug combination exceeded the additive risk of the agents alone. The risk ratio for an upper gastrointestinal bleed from an SSRI-aspirin interaction was 1.9-7.2. In addition, the number needed to harm in terms of an upper gastrointestinal bleed from an SSRI-NSAID combination ranged from 62-75 patient-years, and the number needed to harm for gastrointestinal adverse effects was 2 patient-years. CONCLUSION: Concurrent use of an SSRI and NSAID increases the risk of gastrointestinal adverse outcomes such as bleeding. Clinicians must take care to avoid these negative outcomes by altering NSAID or SSRI therapy, or by providing ulcer-protective drugs.

Examining the Value of Subsidies of Health Plans and Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs in the Health Insurance Marketplace.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) initiated federally and state-run health insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, with health plans offering subsidies for plan members as well as coverage for essential health benefits, to help individuals, families, and small businesses find health plans that fit their specific needs. A recent study found that the value of these healthcare subsidies varied with the number of health plans in the different geographic rating areas, but that study only examined the premiums and the deductibles of those health plans. OBJECTIVES: To examine the value of subsidies of health plans, including cost-sharing for prescription drugs in the health insurance marketplace. METHODS: We have used publicly available health plan data from HealthCare.gov and from county population data obtained from the US Census Bureau in June 2015. The average-weighted premium; medical deductible; medical maximum out-of-pocket spending; and cost-sharing for generic drugs, preferred and nonpreferred brand-name drugs, and specialty drugs were calculated for the second lowest-cost silver plan in each geographic rating area. These were then compared across geographic areas with different numbers of plans to determine the value of the subsidies. We also compared the difference between the cost of the average silver plan and the second lowest-cost silver plan for each area to determine the cost to enrollees if they selected the average silver plan. RESULTS: The monetary value of the subsidies provided by health plans was lower in areas with a larger number of plans, because the second lowest-cost silver plans in these areas tended to have lower premiums and higher deductibles. For the most common type of cost-sharing for generic and for preferred brand-name drugs, plan enrollees would likely have a lower or similar copayment if they selected the average-cost silver plan instead of the second lowest-cost silver plan. However, they may end up paying approximately $8 less in copayment for nonpreferred branded drugs and approximately 4% less for coinsurance after a deductible for specialty drugs if they resided in a geographic area with fewer than 11 plans. CONCLUSION: The value of subsidies provided by the ACA-initiated health plans in the healthcare marketplace, including cost-sharing for prescription drugs, varies across geographic areas with different numbers of health plans. This suggests that potential enrollees should consider cost-sharing for prescription drugs in addition to health plans' premiums and deductibles when choosing their health plan.

Polypharmacy trends in office visits by the elderly in the United States, 1990 and 2000.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy has been extensively studied internationally and reported to be increasing among the elderly. Within the United States, few studies have examined polypharmacy trends in the elderly population and even fewer studies addressed those at-risk for polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the trends in office-based visits in the United States by the elderly involving polypharmacy and identify elderly at-risk for polypharmacy. METHODS: Data from the 1990 and 2000 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys were used to examine polypharmacy visit trends in the elderly. The Bonferroni inequality method was used to analyze the visit estimates and visit rates. Logistic regression analysis was used to model predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly using the 2000 survey data. RESULTS: Office visits involving polypharmacy for elderly patients were estimated to have nearly quadrupled from 10.1 million in 1990 to 37.5 million in 2000. The proportion of visits by elderly patients involving polypharmacy was 7% in 1990 and 19% in 2000. The increase was consistent among all demographic groups and remained significant even after controlling for elderly population increase. Medication classes involved in polypharmacy remained consistent during the study period and included cardiovascular, hormonal, pain, and gastrointestinal medications. Analysis of the 2000 survey data revealed that several need (multiple diagnoses, chronic problems, and specific disease states), predisposing (female gender), and enabling factors (primary care provider visit and health insurance coverage) were associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: The study found a significant increase in elderly patients' office visits involving polypharmacy in the United States. The study also found that several need, predisposing, and enabling factors were associated with polypharmacy visits in the elderly. These findings suggest opportunities to review and manage elderly patients' medications as recommended by Healthy People 2010, a national agenda to improve the health of Americans.

Patients' perceived value of pharmacy quality measures: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' perceived value and use of quality measures in evaluating and choosing community pharmacies. DESIGN: Focus group methodology was combined with a survey tool. During the focus groups, participants assessed the value of the Pharmacy Quality Alliance's quality measures in evaluating and choosing a pharmacy. Also, participants completed questionnaires rating their perceived value of quality measures in evaluating a pharmacy (1 being low value and 5 being high) or choosing a pharmacy (yes/no). Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the focus groups and surveys, respectively. SETTING: Semistructured focus groups were conducted in a private meeting space of an urban and a rural area of a Mid-western State in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four adults who filled prescription medications in community pharmacies for a chronic illness were recruited in community pharmacies, senior centres and public libraries. RESULTS: While comments indicated that all measures were important, medication safety measures (eg, drug-drug interactions) were valued more highly than others. Rating of quality measure utility in evaluating a pharmacy ranged from a mean of 4.88 ('drug-drug interactions') to a mean of 4.0 ('absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma'). Patients were hesitant to use quality information in choosing a pharmacy (depending on the participant's location) but might consider if moving to a new area or having had a negative pharmacy experience. Use of select quality measures to choose a pharmacy ranged from 97.1% of participants using 'drug-drug interactions' (medication safety measure) to 55.9% using 'absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma'. CONCLUSIONS: The study participants valued quality measures in evaluating and selecting a community pharmacy, with medication safety measures valued highest. The participants reported that the quality measures would not typically cause a switch in pharmacy but might influence their selection in certain situations.

Relationship of Prepharmacy Repeat Course History to Students' Early Academic Difficulty in a Pharmacy Curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between students' prepharmacy repeat course history and their academic difficulties early in a professional pharmacy program in conjunction with other prerequisite success variables known to predict academic difficulty. METHODS: For students admitted to a pharmacy program in 2010 and 2011 (n=160), admission variables [eg, prepharmacy coursework, grade point average (GPA)] and pharmacy program academic difficulty data (ie, academic difficulty defined as a pharmacy GPA in the bottom quartile of the class after 3 semesters of pharmacy course work) were extracted. Regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship between admission variables and academic difficulty. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of the students (n=42) repeated a course, and 50% of these students (n=21) repeated more than one course. All of the admissions variables studied were found to individually increase the odds of a student having academic difficulty early in the pharmacy program. Specifically, repeat of a prepharmacy course increased the odds of academic difficulty threefold. CONCLUSION: Repeating prepharmacy coursework appears to be a strong indicator of future academic difficulties early in a professional pharmacy program.

Psychotropic prescription use by community-dwelling elderly in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine psychotropic prescription use in community-dwelling elderly in the United States and its association with predisposing, enabling, and need factors. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Survey (MEPS). SETTING: A national representative sample survey of the United States non-institutionalized population. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling persons aged 65 and older participating in the MEPS. MEASUREMENTS: Psychotropic prescription use patterns and factors associated with the use of psychotropics in general as well as of individual classes, specifically antidepressants, antianxiety agents, and sedative/hypnotics. RESULTS: According to the MEPS, more than 6 million (19%) community-dwelling elderly persons used psychotropic medications in 1996. Nearly 3 million (9.1%) elderly were taking antidepressants, almost 2.5 million (7.5%) antianxiety agents, and 1.5 million (4.8%) sedative/hypnotics. Several correlates of psychotropic prescription use were identified. Enabling (e.g., prescription insurance) and need (e.g., health status) factors were found to be consistently associated with the use of antidepressant, antianxiety, and sedative/hypnotic agents. Predisposing factors such as sex, race, region, and education varied with the type of psychotropic drug class examined. CONCLUSION: Nearly one in five community-dwelling elderly persons used psychotropic medications, primarily antidepressants followed by antianxiety agents. Enabling and need factors were consistently associated with psychotropic classes examined, whereas most predisposing factors varied with the type of psychotropic drug class.

Prescribing of psychotropics in the elderly: why is it so often inappropriate?

Psychotropic medications are an important treatment approach to mental health disorders; such disorders are common in the elderly population. Elderly patients are more likely to experience adverse effects from these agents than their younger counterparts due to age-related changes in pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters. Because of these factors, inappropriate use of psychotropic medications in elderly patients has become a focus of concern. In general an agent is considered inappropriate if the risk associated with its use exceeds its benefit. Implicit and explicit criteria for inappropriate use of medications in the elderly have been created and include psychotropic agents. These criteria vary in their make-up but the explicit criteria tend to agree that amitriptyline, doxepin, and benzodiazepines that have long half-lives are not appropriate. Although explicit inappropriate medication criteria have been in existence since 1991, elderly patients continue to receive inappropriate psychotropic medications. A wide array of factors may be responsible for this practice. Provider-related causes include deficits in knowledge, confusion due to the lack of a consensus on the inappropriate psychotropic criteria, difficulties in addressing an inappropriate medication started by a previous provider, multiple prescribers and pharmacies involved in the care of a patient, negative perceptions regarding aging, and cost issues. Patients may contribute to the problem by demanding an inappropriate medication. Finally, the healthcare setting may inadvertently contribute to inappropriate prescribing by such policies as restrictive formularies or lack of reimbursement for pharmacists' clinical services. Successful approaches to optimising prescribing have been either educational or administrative. Educational approaches (e.g. one-on-one sessions, academic detailing) seek to influence decision making, while administrative approaches attempt to enforce policies to curtail the undesired practice. The US Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, which improved psychotropic medication use in long-term care, is an excellent example of administrative intervention. More research specifically focused on the causes of inappropriate psychotropic medication use and methods to avoid this practice is needed before targeted recommendations can be made.

Prevalence, correlates, and associated outcomes of potentially inappropriate psychotropic use in the community-dwelling elderly.

BACKGROUND: Previous applications of the Beers criteria have shown significant prescribing of potentially inappropriate psychotropic agents for the community-dwelling elderly. However, there is limited information at the national level on potentially inappropriate psychotropic use, the characteristics of elderly persons at risk, and the impact of this inappropriate use on health care outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study addressed the prevalence, correlates, and associated outcomes of potentially inappropriate psychotropic use among community-dwelling elderly persons in the United States who were receiving psychotropic medications. METHODS: Data from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) were employed to examine the use of psychotropic medications that generally should be avoided in the elderly and those that should be avoided in elderly patients with certain preexisting conditions, as defined by the Beers criteria. The MEPS sampling weights were used to derive national estimates. Cross-sectional data were analyzed by multivariate analyses to examine the correlates and associated health care outcomes (health care utilization, economic, and humanistic) of potentially inappropriate psychotropic use in the elderly. RESULTS: An estimated 2.30 million community-dwelling elderly persons received potentially inappropriate psychotropic medications in 1996. This represented 7.14% of all community-dwelling elderly persons and 37.86% of all community-dwelling elderly persons using psychotropic agents; 32.94% of those taking psychotropic drugs received agents that were generally inappropriate, and 10.21% received agents that were inappropriate in the presence of specific conditions. The rates of potentially inappropriate psychotropic use in those receiving antidepressant, antianxiety, and sedative/hypnotic agents were 50.93%, 31.84%, and 23.49%, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that correlates of potentially inappropriate psychotropic use in the elderly were age <75 years and use of multiple psychotropic agents. After controlling for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, no association was found between the use of potentially inappropriate psychotropic medications and differences in health care utilization, economic, or humanistic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that although the use of potentially inappropriate psychotropic medications is common among the community-dwelling elderly who are prescribed psychotropic agents, the unfavorable risk-benefit ratio of these inappropriate medications does not appear to influence broad measures of health care utilization, costs, or quality of life in this population.

Retrospective survey of long-term care staff: 12 conditions identified, evaluated, and reported as suspected adverse drug reactions.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the identification of conditions, the evaluation of these conditions as adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and the communication practices regarding suspected ADRs in a long-term care (LTC) facility. DESIGN AND SETTING: Health care providers completed a survey containing nine questions covering 13 conditions, about residents of a 99-bed LTC facility. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five health care providers (i.e., CNAs, LPNs, RNs, RPh, social workers, and an activities worker) reviewed residents on their units. A total of 67 residents were reviewed. RESULTS: The RPh was aware of fewer of the residents' conditions (16% of all conditions) compared with CNAs (34%), LPNs (38%), and RNs (45%). RNs and the RPh identified an equal percent of conditions that could be caused by a resident's medications (66.5% and 66.7% of all conditions, respectively). This was greater than LPNs (36%) or CNAs (9.9%). However, RNs and the RPh actually attributed a lower percentage of these conditions to the medications (43.9% and 41.7%, respectively) compared with LPNs (57.4%) and CNAs (90.0%). CNAs notified others in a higher percentage of the cases where they suspected an ADR (81.5%) compared with the RPh (60%), RNs (57.4%), or LPNs (10.3%). No notification was primarily attributed to "nothing could be done," the condition is an expected effect, others were aware of the condition, and the condition currently is being treated. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the importance of a team approach to ensure that all health care providers are aware of conditions to properly evaluate and resolve them.